DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 05/19/2023 and is in response to Applicant's election of Invention I filed 03/04/2026 following the Requirement for Restriction of 01/27/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending with claims 12-20 withdrawn from consideration as being party to a non-elected Invention.
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 without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The instant Applicant claims foreign priority to KR10-2022-0125223. Instant Claim 1 as presented recites “a plurality of laser generators which generates an incident laser beam”, “a second monitoring device which detects individual pulses of the incident laser beam”, and “wherein the controller generates a plurality of synthesized pulses by combining the individual pulses of the incident laser beam” but it is not clear that this aspect is disclosed in the foreign priority document. This is based upon translation of the foreign priority’s description and claims. See attached translation of KR20240046356A (which is the published patent application of KR10-2022-0125223).
Due to this, the foreign priority of the Claims 1-12 as presented would be the US filing date of 19 May 2023. The earliest possible priority date for any claim of this application is 30 September 2022 and any claim not supported by the foreign priority application has an effective filing date of 19 May 2023 (the US filing date of this patent application).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the aspect of “a plurality of laser generators which generates an incident laser beam” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Currently, the figures only show either: 1) a laser generator 100 generating one incident laser beam L as shown in fig. 1; or 2) a plurality of laser generators 101 to 106 generating laser beams L1 to L6 as shown in fig. 2.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an optical system” in claim 1. “system” being the generic placeholder; “which optically converts the incident laser beam to an output laser beam” being the functional language in the claim; insufficient structural limitations present in the claim.
The corresponding structure recited in the specification is:
“The optical system 200 includes a plurality of lenses and a plurality of modulators which are not shown in FIG. 1” and “In an embodiment, for example, the optical system 200 may include at least one mirror that entirely reflects the laser beam L and at least one splitter that reflects a portion of the laser beam L incident thereto and transmits another portion of the laser beam L incident thereto. In addition, the optical system 200 may include a telescope lens, a homogenizer, a cylindrical lens, or the like that are sequentially positioned” in pr. 53 of the instant PGPub; and
“The optical system 200 may include at least one mirror, at least one splitter, a plurality of lenses, and a plurality of modulators, and may change an energy distribution of the incident laser beams L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, and L6 to allow the synthesized emission laser beam L′ to have a uniform energy distribution” in pr. 71 of the instant PGPub.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1 line 2, the limitation “a plurality of laser generators which generates an incident laser beam” fails the written description requirement. While this aspect is recited in the instant specification and the claims, it appears to be only stated in the broadest sense and does not explain how this occurs beyond what is merely stated by the limitation. Further, this aspect appears absent in the “Detailed Description” section. The instant disclosure in the detailed description section discusses where either a laser generator 100 generates an incident laser beam L (see pr. 49 of the instant PGPub) or where “laser generator 100 may include a plurality of laser generators that generates a plurality of laser beams. The plurality of incident laser beams L generated from the plurality of laser generators may be converted to a synthesized output laser beam L′ while passing through the optical system 200” in pr. 51 of the instant PGPub. Additionally, pr. 56 of the instant PGPub further states that “Specifically, one incident laser beam L may be generated by only one laser generator among the plurality of laser generators”. These being is markedly different from the “plurality of generators which generates an incident laser beam” as recited in the claim. Further, the instant drawings fail to reflect the claimed aspect as well with either a laser generator generating an incident laser beam or a plurality of laser generators generating a plurality of laser beams. Therefore, it does not appear that the instant disclosure describes in such a way that reasonably conveys that applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the instant effective filing date which requires “a plurality of laser generators which generates an incident laser beam”.
Regarding Claim 1 lines 7-8, the limitation “a first monitoring device which detects a synthesized pulse of the output laser beam” fails the written description requirement given that “an optical system which optically converts the incident laser beam to an output laser beam”. It does not appear that the instant disclosure describes in such a way that reasonably conveys that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the instant effective filing date which requires “a first monitoring device which detects a synthesized pulse of the output laser beam” as there is no explanation for how the output laser beam converted from the single incident laser beam (i.e. one laser beam to one laser beam) would have a synthesized pulse given that it is converted from a singular incident laser beam. This is only fully explained for the case where a plurality of incident laser beams are converted to an output laser beam in the instant disclosure.
Regarding Claim 1 lines 9-10, the limitation “a second monitoring device which detects individual pulses of the incident laser beam” fails the written description requirement. While the instant disclosure states of “individual pulses of the incident laser beam”, it does not appear that the instant disclosure describes in such a way that reasonably conveys that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the instant effective filing date which requires a “monitoring device which detects individual pulses of the incident laser beam” since the individual pulse is related to the laser beam generated by a specific laser generator. There is no explanation in the specification for how a singular incident laser beam can be generated by a plurality of laser generators, and thus no explanation for how a singular incident laser beam can have individual pulses. output laser beam converted from the single incident laser beam (i.e. one laser beam to one laser beam) would have a synthesized pulse given that it is converted from a singular incident laser beam.
Claims 2-11 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) due to their respective dependency upon claim 1 rejected above.
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1 line 2, the limitation “a plurality of laser generators which generates an incident laser beam”. When interpreted in light of the specification, it is unclear how a plurality of laser generators would generate a single incident laser beam as well as if this is what is meant to actually be stated. The instant specification fails to sufficiently describe or explain how a single incident laser beam is generated by a plurality of laser generators. The instant disclosure in the detailed description section discusses where: 1) a laser generator 100 generates an incident laser beam L (see pr. 49 of the instant PGPub); 2) where “laser generator 100 may include a plurality of laser generators that generates a plurality of laser beams. The plurality of incident laser beams L generated from the plurality of laser generators may be converted to a synthesized output laser beam L′ while passing through the optical system 200” in pr. 51 of the instant PGPub; and 3) where “one incident laser beam L may be generated by only one laser generator among the plurality of laser generators” in pr. 56, which would be “a plurality of laser generators, one of which generates an incident laser beam”. These being different and distinct from “a plurality of laser generators which generates an incident laser beam”, as required by the claim. This difference between the instant specification and drawings and what is in claim 1 leads to the uncertainty as to what the limitation means in light of the specification and how it should be interpreted.
Regarding Claim 1 lines 7-8, the limitation “a first monitoring device which detects a synthesized pulse of the output laser beam” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the output laser beam can have a “synthesized pulse” (i.e. composite/combined pulse) if “an optical system which optically converts the incident laser beam to an output laser beam” is also required by the claim; as recited earlier. If only the incident laser beam is converted into the output laser beam (as stated in the claim), it is unclear how the output laser beam can be defined to have a synthesized pulse if it not formed by a composite/combination. Additionally, it is not clear how an output laser beam can have a synthesized pulse if it is the result of a single incident laser beam with a plurality of individual pulses converted into the output laser beam (i.e. converting one laser beam to one laser beam).
Regarding Claim 1 lines 9-10, the limitation “a second monitoring device which detects individual pulses of the incident laser beam”. It is unclear how an incident laser beam can have a plurality of individual pulses associated with it given that it is a single incident laser beam. The instant specification fails to further to clarify how this occurs and pr. 22-23 and pr. 88 of the instant PGPub point to the individual pulses being detected from a plurality of laser beams instead of from a single incident laser beam as required by the claim. additionally, it is now clear how a single incident laser beam is to have a plurality of individual pulses if the incident laser beam is to be converted to an output laser beam (see lines 3-4 of the claim) with a synthesized pulse when this is merely converting one laser beam to one laser beam.
Claims 2-11 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) due to their respective dependency upon claim 1 rejected above.
Regarding Claim 2, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. Deleting this word would remedy this rejection. Alternatively, the topic of a predetermined “management range” in pr. 84, 98 and 100 of the instant PGPub appears to be a possible way to state the spirit of this claim.
Examiner Note: The Claims are not able to be meaningfully understood due to the indefinite issues highlighted in the rejections above. Since the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not able to be concretely determined for the claims as currently presented, an accurate analysis of the patentability of the claimed invention against prior art is not possible.
Pertinent Prior Art
US 12562543 – presents a laser crystallization apparatus where a plurality of laser generators which generates at incident laser beams (see laser light sources 21,22 in fig. 1), an optical system which optically converts the incident laser beams to an output laser beam (see synthetic optical system 5 fig. 1, the laser is synthesized by the synthetic optical system 5); a processing chamber in which a thin film formed on a substrate is crystallized by the output laser beam radiated thereto (see laser irradiation chamber 7; “annealing optical system 11 is an optical system for generating laser light for crystallizing an amorphous silicon film formed on the substrate 8 and converting the amorphous silicon film into a polysilicon film” pr. 33); a first monitoring device which detects a synthesized pulse of the output laser beam (see bi planar phototube which detects a pulse waveform from the output laser beam exiting the optical system 5 in fig. 1); a second monitoring device which detects individual pulses of the incident laser beam (“ the control unit 91 of the control device 9 may acquire the characteristic information from the control device of the first laser light source 21 and the second laser light source 22. The characteristic information includes, for example, information about inter-pulse energy stability (energy stability: δ/mean), pointing stability (pointing: P), or both” pr. 61); a controller which controls oscillation times of the plurality of laser generators (“control unit 91 has an arithmetic processing unit having a timing function such as one or a plurality of CPUs (Central Processing Units), MPUs (Micro-Processing Units), and GPUs (Graphics Processing Units), and performs various information processing and control processing for each optical system included in the laser light source 2 or the annealing optical system 11” pr. 56); the controller generates training data based on the characteristic information of the laser generators (see fig. 7 and fig. 10 where training data is generated).
CN113843535A and JP5904590B2 – discloses a laser crystallization apparatus where a plurality of laser generators generate a plurality of incident laser beams, an optical system converts the plurality of incident laser beams to an output laser beam, a first monitoring means detects synthesized pulse data of the output laser beam; second monitoring devices detect individual pulse data of the incident laser beams, a process chamber, and a controller which controls timing setting and control of the attenuation rate for the laser generators.
JP2015012204A – discloses a laser crystallization apparatus, where a plurality of laser generators generates an incident laser beam, a controller and process chamber are provided, a first monitoring device which detects synthesized pulse data of an output laser beam.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0157120 – discloses a laser annealing device which appears to show two laser generators which together generate a single incident laser.
US 2024/0322518 – discloses a laser irradiation device and a method for generating a learning model.
JP2007116113A – discloses a laser crystallizing device provided with a sensor, the sensor can be provided at various locations between the laser generator and the process chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights