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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, in fig. 1, reference character “SUN” should be “SUB.”
The drawings are objected to because, in fig. 1, from TL1 to TL2, two of four laser beam lines have arrows, while the other two do not, but it seems that all of them should have arrows.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the input laser beam L1 being incident on the first surface S1 of the beam converter BTU, reflected at least once on the second surface S2 and the fourth surface S4, thereby being divided by the beam converter BTU as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: RAX (fig. 8).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 2 of the submitted specification, “filmand” should be “film and.”
In ¶ 4 of the submitted specification, “explosionoccurs” should be “explosion occurs.”
In ¶ 7 of the submitted specification, “anda” should be “and a.”
In ¶ 13 of the submitted specification, “13at” should be “13 at.”
In ¶ 18 of the submitted specification, “thelaser” should be “the laser.”
In ¶ 20 of the submitted specification, “sublaser” should be “sub laser” to comport with the language elsewhere in the disclosure.
In ¶ 25 of the submitted specification, “pitchat” should be “pitch at,” and “36at” should be “36 at.,” and “beabout” should be “be about.”
In ¶ 26 of the submitted specification, “intensitymay” should be “intensity may,” and “2µm” should be “2 µm” to conform to the unit presentation style of the rest of the disclosure.
In ¶ 27 of the submitted specification, “alaser” should be “a laser.”
In ¶ 33 of the submitted specification, “apparatusof” should be “apparatus of.”
In ¶ 40 of the submitted specification, “aschematic” should be “a schematic.”
In ¶ 49 of the submitted specification, “apparatusof” should be “apparatus of.”
In ¶ 51 of the submitted specification, “BTUand” should be “BTU and.”
In ¶¶ 64 and 66 of the submitted specification, “apparatusLA” should be “apparatus LA.”
In ¶ 69 of the submitted specification, “intensityarea” should be “intensity area.”
In ¶ 71 of the submitted specification, “intensityarea” should be “intensity area” and “havemaximum” should be “have maximum.”
In ¶ 77 of the submitted specification, “(in FIG. 6)may” should be “(in FIG. 6) may,” “afirstpoint” should be “a first point,” and “ASF,and” should be “ASF, and.”
In ¶ 83 of the submitted specification, “intensityareaHI” should be “intensity area HI,” “intensityarea” should be “intensity area,” and “thirdwidth” should be “third width.”
In ¶ 90 of the submitted specification, “intensityareaHW” should be “intensity area HW.”
In ¶ 91 of the submitted specification, “forthe” should be “for the,” and “relativelyhigh” should be “relatively high.”
In ¶ 93 of the submitted specification, “highintensity” should be “high intensity.”
In ¶ 95 of the submitted specification, “intensityarea” should be “intensity area,” and “forthe” (recited twice) should be “for the.”
In ¶ 104 of the submitted specification, “forthe” should be “for the.”
Claim Objections
Claims 3–10, 12, 13, and 15–20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “secondstiffness” (l. 4), which should be “second stiffness.”
Claim 7 recites “intensityarea,” which should be “intensity area.”
Claim 7 recites “36at,” which should be “36 at.”
Claim 10 should be amended to recite “high intensity area.”
Claim 12 should be amended to replace “Thelaser” with “The laser.”
Claim 13 should be amended to replace “adjustorincludes” with “adjustor includes.”
Each of claims 15–20 should be amended to replace “methodof” with “method of.”
Claim 19 should be amended to replace “intensityarea” with “intensity area.”
Claim 20 should be amended to recite “the high intensity area.”
Claims 4–6, 8, and 9 are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
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.
Claims 2, 4–11, 13, 15, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Each of claims 2, 5–7, 9–11, 15, and 17–20 each employ the term “about” The term “about” in each of claims 2, 5–7, 9–11, 15, and 17–20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant should strike each recitation of the term “about” from each claim.
Claim 4 recites that “the output laser beam is irradiated to an amorphous silicon film at a predetermined scan pitch.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because claim 4 is an apparatus claim, but this limitation is a method step. While certain claim language resembling method steps can be a part of a claim to fairly define the functionality of the structure, such a justification is not available for this limitation, rendering it indefinite as an inclusion of a process in a product claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(p).
Similarly, claims 5–8 also recite method steps, and are indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 13 recites “the beam size adjustor,” which lacks antecedent basis because the claim depends from claim 10 instead of claim 12. For examination purposes, the claim will be understood to depend from claim 12.
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.
Claims 1–3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beck et al. (US Pub. 2021/0255466).
Claim 1: Beck discloses a laser crystallization apparatus (¶ 4, “recrystallization”) comprising:
a beam generator (14) generating an input laser beam (16);
a beam converter (22, 26) dividing the input laser beam incident from the beam generator into a plurality of sub laser beams (see the leftward 62 in fig. 5, explained in ¶ 61) and disposed to have a predetermined rotation angle with respect to an optical axis parallel to a traveling direction of the input laser beam (clearly shown with 22 in figs. 3 and 5); and
a beam concentrator (¶ 61, “Fourier lens 64, which is designed for focusing with respect to the x-axis”; see fig. 5) condensing the plurality of sub laser beams and outputting an output laser beam (40) having a beam profile having a predetermined beam width (shown in fig. 8).
Claim 2: Beck discloses that the rotation angle of the beam converter is about 0.34 mrad to about 0.87 mrad (¶ 27 discloses that “The angle of rotation is preferably greater than 0° and smaller than 90°,” which provides a range of 0 to 1570.8 mrads).
Claim 3: Beck discloses that the beam profile of the output laser beam includes:
a first stiffness area (see the leftward 76 in fig. 8) and a second stiffness area (the rightward 76 in fig. 8), wherein the first stiffness area is located at a first end of the beam profile (see fig. 8), and the second stiffness area is located at a second end of the beam profile (ibid.); and
a high intensity area interposed between the first stiffness area and the second stiffness area (see 78 in fig. 8).
Claim 12: Beck discloses a beam size adjustor (66) enlarging or reducing each of the plurality of sub laser beams (described in ¶¶ 62–63, examples shown in figs. 6a–6d).
Claim 13: Beck discloses that the beam size adjustor includes a telescopic lens (68 and 70, see fig. 6a).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 7, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck as applied to claim 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 10-0553761 B1, cited by Applicant, translation provided by the Office).
Claim 4: Beck does not disclose that the output laser beam is irradiated to an amorphous silicon film at a predetermined scan pitch.
However, a predetermined scan pitch seems to be a well-known feature of the use of these sorts of apparatuses. Kim discloses an apparatus for crystallization (see abstract) wherein a similar output laser beam is irradiated to an amorphous silicon film at a predetermined scan pitch (see figs. 2 and 3a showing and listing predetermined scan pitches).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the output laser beam of Beck using the predetermined scan pitch shown in Kim as a known way of achieving the desired crystallization outcome.
Claim 7: Modified as per claim 4 above, Kim discloses that the scan pitch is constant (see the “SP” column in fig. 3a).
Kim does not explicitly disclose that a number of shots for the high intensity area is about 20 to about 36 at a specific point of the amorphous silicon film.
However, Kim alone strongly suggests this, since for either example #1 or #3 in fig. 3a, there are 40 shots at the surface point, and given the trapezoidal shape of the energy distribution, how some of those shots would be allocated to the stiffness areas, it seems more likely than not, or at least an obvious numerical variation of what is disclosed, that 20 to 36 shots are allocated to the high intensity region.
Claim 8: Modified as per claim 4 above, Kim does not disclose a scan pitch of 2 µm. Instead, Kim’s shortest scan pitch is 5 µm.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine appropriate scan rates depending on the beam energy, beam size, shot duration, and other similar aspects of the laser, as a result of routine optimization (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that a scan pitch of 2 µm was appropriate where the other aspects of the laser made such a scan rate suitable.
Claim 11: Beck does not disclose that a beam width of the beam profile of the output laser beam is about 120 µm or more.
However, Kim discloses a similar apparatus with a similar beam shape where a beam width of the beam profile is 120 µm or more (see fig. 3a, “BW” of e.g. 200 µm).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct Beck such that the beam width of its output laser beam was 120 µm or more, as suggested by Kim, given its suitability for crystallization.
Claims 14–16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Kim.
Claim 14: Beck discloses a laser crystallization method (¶ 4, “recrystallization”) comprising a laser crystallization apparatus comprising:
a beam generator (14) generating an input laser beam (16);
a beam converter (22, 26) dividing the input laser beam incident from the beam generator into a plurality of sub laser beams (see the leftward 62 in fig. 5, explained in ¶ 61) and disposed to have a predetermined rotation angle with respect to an optical axis parallel to a traveling direction of the input laser beam (clearly shown with 22 in figs. 3 and 5); and
a beam concentrator (¶ 61, “Fourier lens 64, which is designed for focusing with respect to the x-axis”; see fig. 5) condensing the plurality of sub laser beams and outputting an output laser beam (40) having a beam profile having a predetermined beam width (shown in fig. 8).
Although Beck hints at this (see ¶ 4, “treat the surfaces of glasses or semiconductors (e.g. tempering, annealing)”), Beck does not disclose its laser crystallization apparatus being used to irradiate a laser beam to an amorphous silicon film.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that beam shaping apparatuses like that shown in Beck are applicable in similar areas. Kim discloses a similar laser crystallization apparatus that is used to irradiate a laser beam (“laser annealing irradiates a laser beam having a high energy to an amorphous silicon thin film in a portion where crystallization is required”), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the laser crystallization of apparatus of Beck to perform the method of Kim since Beck’s apparatus has benefits regarding its intensity distribution and control thereof (see ¶ 18 of Beck).
Claim 15: Beck discloses that the rotation angle of the beam converter is about 0.34 mrad to about 0.87 mrad (¶ 27 discloses that “The angle of rotation is preferably greater than 0° and smaller than 90°,” which provides a range of 0 to 1570.8 mrads).
Claim 16: Beck discloses that the beam profile of the output laser beam includes:
a first stiffness area (see the leftward 76 in fig. 8) and a second stiffness area (the rightward 76 in fig. 8), wherein the first stiffness area is located at a first end of the beam profile (see fig. 8), and the second stiffness area is located at a second end of the beam profile (ibid.); and
a high intensity area interposed between the first stiffness area and the second stiffness area (see 78 in fig. 8).
Claim 19: Beck does not disclose that a scan pitch at which the output laser beam is irradiated to an irradiated surface of the amorphous silicon film is constant, and wherein a number of shots for the high intensity area is about 20 to about 36 for a specific point of the amorphous silicon film.
However, a constant scan pitch seems to be a well-known feature of the use of these sorts of apparatuses. Kim discloses an apparatus for crystallization (see abstract) wherein a similar output laser beam is irradiated to an amorphous silicon film at a constant scan pitch (see figs. 2 and 3a showing and listing constant scan pitches).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the output laser beam of Beck using the constant scan pitch shown in Kim as a known way of achieving the desired crystallization outcome.
Kim does not explicitly disclose that a number of shots for the high intensity area is about 20 to about 36 at a specific point of the amorphous silicon film.
However, Kim alone strongly suggests this, since for either example #1 or #3 in fig. 3a, there are 40 shots at the surface point, and given the trapezoidal shape of the energy distribution, how some of those shots would be allocated to the stiffness areas, it seems more likely than not, or at least an obvious numerical variation of what is disclosed, that 20 to 36 shots are allocated to the high intensity region.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 17, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections, as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The term “high intensity area” in the claims raises concerns about indefiniteness given a term of degree (MPEP § 2173.05(b)), but in light of the disclosure, and given the stiffness areas in the claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the claim is simply identifying an area of the beam profile that is at a high intensity compared to the stiffness areas.
Various terms in the claim are terms of art with well-known meaning, such as “beam generator,” “beam converter,” “beam concentrator,” and “beam size adjustor.” Of note, a “beam converter” is a well-known term suggesting an optical element that adjusts an energy distribution of a laser beam, which is a function different from the laser beam dividing also claimed.
Beck et al. (US Pub. 2021/0255466) and Huonker et al. (US Pub. 2019/0151987) are the most relevant prior art of record for disclosing a triangular-shaped beam converter at an angle matching the element of Applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 20, the claimed features are too specific and not disclosed or suggested by Beck, Huonker, Kim, or any other prior art of record.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 17, and 18, Kang et al. (KR 2017-0082694 A, cited by Applicant) and Kim et al. (KR 10-0553761 B1) are both relevant for disclosing some details about scan pitches, particularly with Kim disclosing 40 shots within the beam width (see fig. 3a, example #1, with a beam width of 200 µm and a scan pitch of 5 µm). However, there is nothing in Kim indicating how many scan pitches would take place within its first or second stiffness areas. Meanwhile, Yamazaki et al. (US Pub. 2003/0060026) discloses a similar apparatus (see ¶ 7) with a similar laser beam profile (see figs. 4A and 4B) that is scanned at a pitch (¶ 16, “step by step”). Yamazaki discloses an example beam profile (fig. 4B) with steepness area widths of 0.25 mm, and a high intensity area width of 0.4 mm, for a total with of 900 µm, which arguably renders it similar to the 400 µm beam width taught in Kim. It could be argued that the number of steps shown in Kim, combined with the beam profile shown in fig. 4B of Yamazaki, would render claims 5 and 6 obvious, but given the features missing from each reference, such an argument would seem to be based in impermissible hindsight. Yamazaki et al. (US Pub. 2002/0045288) provides relevant teachings, but they are insufficient to overcome the deficiencies outlined above. The Office notes that Beck’s stiffness areas are adjustable by the angle of the beam converter (¶¶ 66-67).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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 (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761