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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that fig. 3 adequately depicts the input laser beam being incident on side S1, causing reflections between the second and fourth surfaces, and resulting in multiple beams L2 exiting from the third surface L3. This argument is unpersuasive, because the objection was more for failure to show how the laser beam is divided by the beam converter by these reflections. If it is Applicant’s position that the type of reflection and division that occurs within the beam converter would be well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the Office would welcome an illustrated depiction (i.e. not filed as a drawing figure) of what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand happens within the beam converter.
Applicant argues that the use of the term “about” in the claims does not render each claim indefinite because infringement would be ascertainable by measurements. This argument is wholly unpersuasive, as while the numerical values associated with each instance of “about” are certainly measurable, there is no sufficient record to show how much the term “about” broadens each range. If the term “about” is not meant to affect how each numerical value is to be understood, then the claims would be immaterially different if the term was struck.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 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 for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
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).
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.
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, 5–11, 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, 5–11, 15, and 17–20 each employ the term “about.” The term “about” in each of claims 2, 5–11, 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 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 1, 2, 7, 8, 11–15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (US Pub. 2021/0255466) in view of Kim et al. (KR 10-0553761 B1, cited by Applicant, translation provided by the Office) and Yamazaki et al. (US Pub. 2003/0060026).
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),
wherein 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).
Beck does not disclose that the laser crystallization apparatus is configured such that the output laser beam is irradiated to an amorphous silicone film at a predetermined constant 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.
Neither Beck nor Kim disclose that the laser crystallization apparatus is configured such that a number of shots for the high intensity area is greater than a number of shots for each of the first stiffness area and the second stiffness area.
However, Yamazaki discloses a laser crystallization apparatus configured such that a number of shots for a high intensity area is greater than a number of shots for each of the first stiffness area and the second stiffness area (¶ 249 clearly shows that Yamazaki operates by a constant scan pitch; ¶ 151, discussing fig. 4B, provides for a high intensity area L1 of 0.4 mm and first and second stiffness areas L2 and L3 of 0.25 mm; the “half width” feature shown in fig. 4B seems a conventional understanding of the beam width, and comports with the slope determination cutoff shown in fig. 8 of Beck; given the greater width for the high intensity area, a greater number of shots would necessarily be delivered to that area).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the laser crystallization apparatus of Beck modified by Kim to send a greater number of shots to a high intensity area than to each of first and second stiffness areas, as suggested by Yamazaki as an effective beam profile for crystallization (see ¶¶ 290–292 of Yamazaki, which evidently apply even though Yamazaki’s trapezoidal profile shown in fig. 4B has broader stiffness areas than that of its rectangular profile shown in fig. 4A, which seems to be described in Yamazaki as disadvantageous as compared to the trapezoidal profile shown in fig. 4B).
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 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.
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 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),
wherein 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).
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).
Similarly, Beck does not disclose that the laser crystallization apparatus is configured such that the output laser beam is irradiated to an amorphous silicone film at a predetermined constant 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.
Neither Beck nor Kim disclose that the laser crystallization apparatus is configured such that a number of shots for the high intensity area is greater than a number of shots for each of the first stiffness area and the second stiffness area.
However, Yamazaki discloses a laser crystallization apparatus configured such that a number of shots for a high intensity area is greater than a number of shots for each of the first stiffness area and the second stiffness area (¶ 249 clearly shows that Yamazaki operates by a constant scan pitch; ¶ 151, discussing fig. 4B, provides for a high intensity area L1 of 0.4 mm and first and second stiffness areas L2 and L3 of 0.25 mm; the “half width” feature shown in fig. 4B seems a conventional understanding of the beam width, and comports with the slope determination cutoff shown in fig. 8 of Beck; given the greater width for the high intensity area, a greater number of shots would necessarily be delivered to that area).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the laser crystallization apparatus of Beck modified by Kim to send a greater number of shots to a high intensity area than to each of first and second stiffness areas, as suggested by Yamazaki as an effective beam profile for crystallization (see ¶¶ 290–292 of Yamazaki, which evidently apply even though Yamazaki’s trapezoidal profile shown in fig. 4B has broader stiffness areas than that of its rectangular profile shown in fig. 4A, which seems to be described in Yamazaki as disadvantageous as compared to the trapezoidal profile shown in fig. 4B).
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 19: Beck does not disclose that 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, 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, 18, and 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Oda et al. (US Pub. 2014/0167049) discloses scan pitches of about 2 µm (see figs. 6A and 6B).
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 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
Prosecution Insights