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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and species 3 (Fig. 6) which is drawn to claims 1-2, and 5-7 is acknowledged. Claims 3-4, and 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/01/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/04/2025, 05/14/2025 and 06/08/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
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, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo (US 20180019141 A1) in view of Matsuo (US 20200353567 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ohkubo discloses, a glass processing method (see Fig. 5 and disclosed in para 0099 “workpiece 43e may be a glass substrate on which an amorphous silicon thin-film is formed”) comprising:
generating a pulse laser beam (see Fig. 5 and disclosed in para 0096 “a pulse laser beam outputted from the laser apparatus 2”) by using a laser oscillator (see oscillation pulses of the laser apparatus 2 in Fig. 1); and irradiating glass (43e) to be processed with the pulse laser beam (see Fig. 5),
a wavelength of the pulse laser beam ranging from 248 nm to 266 nm (disclosed in para 0007 “KrF excimer laser having a wavelength of 248 nm”), and
the pulse laser beam having an energy ratio smaller than or equal to 99% in a region (disclosed in para 0199, and 0224 “If the reflectance of the beam splitter 16n is more than 65%, a ratio of an optical intensity of a second peak to an optical intensity of a first peak to be discussed later with reference to FIG. 11B may exceed 75% […] the reflectance may be about 40% before irradiating the workpiece 43e with the pulse laser beam”), and a pulse rises to a predetermined ns from a set ns (disclosed in para 0247-0248 “The time interval T.sub.4 between the first and second peaks is preferably 12 ns or more and 100 ns or less, or equal to or greater than the full width at half maximum of the first peak and equal to or smaller than the 5% full width of the first peak […] The full width T.sub.5 at half maximum of the first peak is preferably 15 ns or more and 50 ns or less”).
Even though Ohkubo does not explicitly disclose the pulse laser beam having an energy ratio greater than or equal to 91% but smaller than or equal to 99% in a region from 5 ns after a pulse rises to 400 ns, the claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art. Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the pulse laser beam having the predetermined energy ratio with the predetermined pulse rising of Ohkubo such that the pulse laser beam having an energy ratio greater than or equal to 91% but smaller than or equal to 99% in a region from 5 ns after a pulse rises to 400 ns as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see para 0100 “increasing the reflectance of the beam splitter BS1 in the OPS 100 to a value greater than 40% allows extension of TIS to 74 ns. Increasing the reflectance of the beam splitter BS1 in the OPS 100 to a value greater than or equal to 40% further allows the energy ratio in the region from 5 ns after a pulse rises to 400 ns to increase to a value greater than or equal to 91% but smaller than or equal to 99%”). In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
However, Ohkubo does not explicitly disclose alkali-free glass.
Matsuo teaches, irradiating alkali-free glass (see brittle material layer 1 is formed by alkali-free glass in Fig. 1a-c) to be processed with the pulse laser beam (L1 and L2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the glass of Ohkubo into alkali-free glass as taught/suggested by Matsuo in order to prevent the alkali ion migration into thin-film layers during the processing so as preventing the alkali ion contamination.
Regarding claim 2, Ohkubo in view of Matsuo discloses, the glass processing method according to claim 1, Ohkubo further discloses wherein the laser oscillator is a KrF excimer laser apparatus (disclosed in para 0007 “KrF excimer laser having a wavelength of 248 nm”).
Regarding claim 5, Ohkubo in view of Matsuo discloses, the glass processing method according to claim 1, Ohkubo further wherein let I(t) be optical intensity of a temporal waveform of the pulse laser beam at time t, and a pulse width defined by TIS=[∫I(t)dt].sup.2/∫I(t).sup.2dt (disclosed in para 0220 “ΔT.sub.TIS: a pulse width calculated using [∫I(t)dt].sup.2/∫I(t).sup.2dt”) is greater than or equal to 62 ns but smaller than or equal to 259 ns (disclosed in para 0247 “The time interval T.sub.4 between the first and second peaks is preferably […] 100 ns or less”).
Regarding claim 6, Ohkubo in view of Matsuo discloses, the glass processing method according to claim 1. Even though Ohkubo does not explicitly disclose wherein the energy ratio of the pulse laser beam in the region from 5 ns after a pulse rises to 400 ns is greater than or equal to 91% but smaller than or equal to 95%, the claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art. Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the pulse laser beam having the predetermined energy ratio with the predetermined pulse rising of Ohkubo such that wherein the energy ratio of the pulse laser beam in the region from 5 ns after a pulse rises to 400 ns is greater than or equal to 91% but smaller than or equal to 95% as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see para 0100 “increasing the reflectance of the beam splitter BS1 in the OPS 100 to a value greater than 40% allows extension of TIS to 74 ns. Increasing the reflectance of the beam splitter BS1 in the OPS 100 to a value greater than or equal to 40% further allows the energy ratio in the region from 5 ns after a pulse rises to 400 ns to increase to a value greater than or equal to 91% but smaller than or equal to 99%”). In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Ohkubo in view of Matsuo discloses, the glass processing method according to claim 1, wherein the glass (43e) is processed to form an annealing area (see Fig. 5) by irradiating the glass with the pulse laser beam multiple times (see Fig. 7 and para 0170 “the annealing controller 45 may generate irradiation parameter sets having reference number N=1 to reference number N=nmax”).
However, Ohkubo does not explicitly disclose, wherein the alkali-free glass is processed to form a through hole by irradiating the alkali-free glass with the pulse laser beam multiple times.
Nonetheless, Matsuo teaches, wherein the alkali-free glass (see brittle material layer 1 is formed by alkali-free glass in Fig. 1a-c) is processed to form a through hole (see Figs. 1a-c) by irradiating the alkali-free glass with the pulse laser beam multiple times (see Figs. 1a-c).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the glass processing method of Ohkubo wherein the alkali-free glass is processed to form a through hole by irradiating the alkali-free glass with the pulse laser beam multiple times as taught/suggested by Matsuo in order to obtain the breaking method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday approx. 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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 on (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.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights