DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed on 09/07/2023. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-14, 16 are pending. Claim 9 is withdrawn.
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species C (Claims 1, 4-6, 10-14, 16) in the reply filed on 04/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application CN202310230347.4 filed in People’s Republic of China on 03/10/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202310230347.4 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 2-7 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l) because the lines are not sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined throughout.
All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10-14, 16 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) introduce new 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.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “configured to cause a ratio of an area of each of the plurality of second light spots formed on the second surface to an area of an overlapping region of the plurality of first light spots formed on the first surface to be no less than 1.2 and no more than 20.” (emphasis added) which lacks adequate support. Applicant has not adequately pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed. Notably, according to the specification (e.g., Figure 6, ¶0062) each of the second light spots have a separate area (S21, S22). This area of each of the plurality of second light spots (S21, S22) is not said to be the area which forms part of the ratio; rather, a cumulative area of each of the plurality of second light spots combined forming a lower surface light spot area (S2) that forms part of the disclosed ratio. The claim language on its face would indicate that each area S21 and S22 separately form the ratio to one of ordinary skill, which is not supported by the as-filed disclosure.
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 1, 4-6, 10-14, 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites “an optical element, configured to cause a ratio of an area of each of the plurality of second light spots formed on the second surface to an area of an overlapping region of the plurality of first light spots formed on the first surface to be no less than 1.2 and no more than 20” which renders the claim indefinite. According to the specification (e.g., Figure 6, ¶0062) each of the second light spots have a separate area (S21, S22). This area of each of the plurality of second light spots (S21, S22) is not said to be the area which forms part of the ratio, which is said to be formed of S2/S1. Rather, a cumulative area of each of the plurality of second light spots combined forming a lower surface light spot area (S2) is the area which forms part of the disclosed ratio S2/S1 where there are a plurality of incident laser beams. The claim language on its face would indicate that each area S21 and S22 would each separately form the ratio, which makes the claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).
In Claim 16, the recitation “setting the optical element of the laser etching system, such that the ratio of the area of each of the plurality of second light spots formed on the second surface to the area of the overlapping region of the plurality of first light spots formed on the first surface is not less than 1.2 and no more than 20” is unclear for like reasons to those set forth regarding claim 1 at the section above.
As to Claim 6, “wherein as the incident angle decreases, the ratio of the area of each of the plurality of second light spots formed on the second surface to the area of the overlapping region of the plurality of first light spots formed on the first surface increases” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the claim is requiring a capability to change the ratio of the area, a step of changing the ratio of the area or simply describing would hypothetically happen if one were to change the area the ratio of the area and as such the metes and bounds covered by the claim are not clear.
Claims 4-5 and 10-14 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of a rejected indefinite claim.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-20110000898-A1
“RUMSBY”
US-20210229218-A1
“FENG”
US-20040069751-A1
“YAMAZAKI”
US-20070095802-A1
“CHEN”
This action references the following Foreign patent documents and/or Publications:
FOREIGN
DOCUMENT NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
CN-110091073-A
“ZHANG”
*KR-20170057953-A
“LEE”
WO-2014010686-A1
“SAITO”
*Applicant has provided an English Translation and Copy of this document and therefore and additional copy has not been provided.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUMSBY in view of ZHANG and FENG.
PNG
media_image1.png
779
1080
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1175
865
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1, RUMSBY teaches a laser etching system for electrode layer patterning (¶¶0005-0007), comprising:
a laser emitter 13 for generating and emitting a laser beam 14 (¶0032); and
a laser etching platform [carrier] for supporting and fixing (¶0017) a substrate [transparent glass or plastic substrate such as 11 in Fig. 1 or 41 in Figure 4] of a touch panel (¶¶0005-0006, 0008, 0032), the substrate comprising a first surface [top surface in Figures 1, 4] and a second surface [bottom surface in Figs. 1, 4], wherein the first surface faces the laser beam (Figure 1),
wherein the laser etching system is configured to pattern an electrode layer [thin conductive film layer] on the first surface of the substrate without damaging an electrode layer [thin conductive film layer] on the second surface of the substrate (¶¶0005, 0008-0009, 0035);
the laser emitter is for generating and emitting a plurality of laser beam rays [43, 43’] wherein the plurality of laser beam rays are incident on the first surface of the substrate to generate a plurality of first light spots, and the plurality of the laser beam rays pass through the substrate and are incident on the second surface of the substrate to generate a plurality of second light spots diverging with respect to the first light spots so to not damage the electrode layer on the second surface of the substrate (Figure 4, ¶0035);
wherein the laser etching system further comprises an optical element [12, 15], configured to cause a ratio of an area of each of the plurality of second light spots formed on the second surface to an area of an overlapping region of the plurality of first light spots formed on the first surface to be in a desired range (¶¶0009-0014).
However, RUMSBY fails to teach the laser emitter is for generating and emitting a plurality of laser beams wherein the plurality of laser beams are incident on the first surface of the substrate to generate a plurality of first light spots that overlap with one another on the first surface, and the plurality of the laser beams pass through the substrate and are incident on the second surface of the substrate to generate a plurality of second light spots that are separate from one another on the second surface.
ZHANG teaches a laser emitter is for generating and emitting a plurality of laser beams wherein the plurality of laser beams are incident on a first surface of a substrate that faces the plurality of laser beams to generate a plurality of first light spots that overlap with one another on the first surface (overlap at beam waist to form the ablation area in desired space/volume; abstract, Figures 3-5, pages 2-5 of English Translation, claim 9), and the plurality of the laser beams pass through the substrate and are incident on a second surface of the substrate to generate a plurality of second light spots [annotated “A” and “B” in Image 2] that are separate from one another on the second surface (Figure 3, 5, claim 9; changing/or parameters of the first laser beam and the second laser beam, the number, spatial distribution form, at least one parameter of the focusing lens to adjust the machining energy domain volume and/or space gesture). See English Translation in its entirety and Image 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein the laser emitter is for generating and emitting a plurality of incident laser beams as taught by ZHANG that are incident on the first surface of the substrate which faces the plurality of beams in order to generate a plurality of first light spots that overlap with one another on the first surface, and such that the plurality of the laser beams pass through the substrate (pass through transparent layer in RUMSBY to reach the opposite film layer forming the second surface) and are incident on the second surface of the substrate to generate a plurality of second light spots that are separate from one another on the second surface of the substrate in RUMSBY, in order to reduce processing energy, and/or provide high precision or processing speed or reliability (ZHANG abstract, page 6). Providing the system such that no single laser beam, of the plurality as taught by ZHANG, will be individually powerful enough to cross the ablation energy threshold of the first surface may provide a lower overall energy requirement and/or a more controlled system wherein ablation can only occur in the controlled overlap region, facilitating high precision. However, RUMSBY in view of ZHANG as discussed so far fails to expressly teach the second surface is attached to the laser etching platform (though implicit).
FENG teaches a second surface 2b is attached to a laser etching platform 3 (Figure 2a, 4; ¶¶0036-0037, 0042, 0051-0053). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein the second surface is attached to the laser etching platform, in order to fix and support the substrate such that it may be etched via lasers on both sides (FENG ¶¶0036-0037, 0042, 0051-0053; RUMSBY ¶0032). However, RUMSBY in view of ZHANG and FENG as discussed so far, fails to quantify that the ratio of the area of each of the plurality of second light spots formed on the second surface to an area of an overlapping region of the plurality of first light spots formed on the first surface is no less than 1.2 and no more than 20.
However, ratio of an area of each of the plurality of second light spots formed on the second surface to an area of an overlapping region of the plurality of first light spots formed on the first surface was recognized as a result effective variable, routinely optimized in order to achieve proper ablation energy suitable to ablate the desired surface without ablating the undesired surface (RUMSBY ¶¶0008-0015, ZHANG “wherein the N laser beams can be controllably focused by the focusing lens and then cross overlap, and form a processing energy domain in the overlapping area, the power density in the processing energy domain is greater than the ablation threshold of the workpiece material to be processed”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system to arrive at a ratio of an area of each of the plurality of second light spots formed on the second surface to an area of an overlapping region of the plurality of first light spots formed on the first surface to be no less than 1.2 and no more than 20, in order to achieve a recognized result of appropriate power densities at corresponding surfaces and doing so by utilizing two overlapping beams suitable to ablate a first surface at the overlap without ablating a second opposite surface pf the substrate of a touch panel, such that two different patterns may be made on each side whilst using minimal energy as discussed above in relation to RUMSBY and ZHANG and since it has been held that the optimization of result effective variables by routine experimentation was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Re Claim 16, RUMSBY in view of ZHANG and FENG teaches a laser etching method for electrode layer patterning using the laser etching system of claim 1 (see Claim 1 above), including patterning the electrode layer on the first surface of the substrate using the plurality of laser beams (see Claim 1 as modified).
Furthermore, providing the method wherein setting the optical element of the laser etching system, such that the ratio of the area of each of the plurality of second light spots formed on the second surface to the area of the overlapping region of the plurality of first light spots formed on the first surface is not less than 1.2 and no more than 20 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above in Claim 1. Providing of an area of each of the plurality of second light spots formed on the second surface to an area of an overlapping region of the plurality of first light spots formed on the first surface was recognized as a result effective variable, routinely optimized in order to achieve proper ablation energy suitable to ablate the desired surface without ablating the undesired surface (RUMSBY ¶¶0008-0015, ZHANG “wherein the N laser beams can be controllably focused by the focusing lens and then cross overlap, and form a processing energy domain in the overlapping area, the power density in the processing energy domain is greater than the ablation threshold of the workpiece material to be processed”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to provide the method including setting the optical element of the laser etching system, such that the ratio of the area of each of the plurality of second light spots formed on the second surface to the area of the overlapping region of the plurality of first light spots formed on the first surface is not less than 1.2 and no more than 20, in order to achieve a recognized result of appropriate power densities at corresponding surfaces and doing so by utilizing two overlapping beams suitable to ablate a first surface at the overlap without ablating a second opposite surface pf the substrate of a touch panel, such that two different patterns may be made on each side whilst using minimal energy as discussed above in relation to RUMSBY and ZHANG and since it has been held that the optimization of result effective variables by routine experimentation was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Re Claim 4, RUMSBY in view of ZHANG and FENG the laser etching system of claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the optical element comprises a laser galvanometer configured to adjust an optical path of each of the plurality of laser beams to form a plurality of positive defocused laser beams, each positive defocused laser beam having a laser focus above the substrate.
ZHANG further teaches wherein an optical element comprises a laser galvanometer configured to adjust an optical path of each of the plurality of laser beams (See Figure 3 and “the multi-beam coupling laser processing system further includes: a scanning galvanometer arranged between the laser light source and the focusing lens, and correspondingly arranged on the optical path of at least one laser beam, and at least It is used to adjust the angle and direction of the laser beam incident on the focusing lens”) to form a plurality of positive defocused laser beams (Figure 3), each positive defocused laser beam having a laser focus above the substrate (shown in Figure 3, beams cross above substrate). RUMSBY also teaches positive defocused laser beam having a laser focus above the substrate (Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the optical element wherein it comprises a laser galvanometer configured to adjust an optical path of each of the plurality of laser beams to form a plurality of positive defocused laser beams, each positive defocused laser beam having a laser focus above the substrate for the reasons discussed above in Claim 1.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUMSBY in view of ZHANG and FENG as applied above, further in view of YAMAZAKI.
Re Claim 5, RUMSBY in view of ZHANG and FENG teaches the laser etching system of claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of positive defocused laser beams has an incident angle, relative to the first surface of the substrate (See ZHANG above). However, RUMSBY in view of ZHANG and FENG fail to teach the angle is no more than 60 degrees.
ZHANG further teaches incident angle relative to the first surface of the substrate (FIgure 3) and that it is controlled for appropriate energy domain (“spatial distribution of laser beams [the spatial distribution of laser beams can be adjusted by scanning galvanometers], you can Changing the spatial attitude of the processing energy domain is beneficial to realize the precise processing of different features. The distribution mode of a single independent beam is shown in Figure 2a and Figure 2b, which are not limited to the two types in the figure, and can also be set according to specific processing requirements.”). YAMAZAKI teaches a plurality of laser beams 206, 212 controlled to have a particular incident angle (90 minus theta), relative to a first surface of the substrate no more than 60 degrees (¶0063, 50 degrees). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein each of the plurality of positive defocused laser beams has an incident angle, relative to the first surface of the substrate no more than 60 degrees, in order to control the energy density and/or spatial distribution of the energy domain of the laser system (ZHANG page 4, YAMAZAKI ¶0063).
PNG
media_image3.png
972
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 6, RUMSBY in view of ZHANG, FENG and YAMAAKI teaches the laser etching system of claim 5 as discussed above, wherein as the incident angle decreases, the ratio of the area of each of the plurality of second light spots formed on the second surface to the area of the overlapping region of the plurality of first light spots formed on the first surface increases (see ZHANG Figure 3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUMSBY in view of ZHANG and FENG as applied above, further in view of SAITO.
Re Claim 10, RUMSBY in view of ZHANG, FENG teaches the laser etching system of claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach further comprising a blower for providing a cooling gas flow to positions of the plurality of first light spots where the plurality of laser beams are incident on the first surface.
SAITO teaches a blower for providing a cooling gas flow 40 to positions of a plurality of first laser light spots (of 20) incident on the first surface (Figure 11). The irradiation position of the laser beam 20 may exist inside the spray position of the gas 40. Note that the spray position of the gas 40 may be in front of or behind the irradiation position of the laser beam 20. The gas 40 blows off a deposit (for example, dust) on the tempered glass plate 10 to prevent the laser light 20 from being absorbed by the deposit and prevent the surface 12 of the tempered glass plate 10 from being overheated. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a blower for providing a cooling gas flow to positions of the plurality of first light spots where the plurality of laser beams are incident on the first surface, in order to facilitate the substrate surface not overheating adjacent to the laser beams.
PNG
media_image4.png
588
756
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUMSBY in view of ZHANG, FENG and SAITO as applied above, further in view of CHEN and LEE.
Re Claim 11, RUMSBY in view of ZHANG, FENG and SAITO teaches the laser etching system of claim 10, but as discussed so far fails to teach further comprising a cooling device, which is configured to provide a cooling agent flow to a position of each second light spot of the plurality of second light spots on the second surface where the plurality of laser beams are incident, wherein a temperature of the cooling agent flow is at least 14C lower than a temperature of the cooling gas flow.
CHEN teaches a cooling device 150 configured to cool a position (second surface) of a substrate (wherein each second light spot of the plurality of second light spots on the second surface where the plurality of laser beams are incident in the prior art combination). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cooling device, to cool position of each second light spot of the plurality of second light spots on the second surface where the plurality of laser beams are incident, to remove superfluous heat and/or prevent cracks (¶0025). However, RUMSBY in view of ZHANG, FENG, SAITO and CHEN fails to teach the cooling device is configured to provide a cooling agent flow to the position and wherein a temperature of the cooling agent flow is at least 14C lower than a temperature of the cooling gas flow.
PNG
media_image5.png
1098
1096
media_image5.png
Greyscale
LEE teaches a cooling device is configured to provide a cooling agent flow to a position by providing a cooling flow therethrough the cooler (LEE page 13 of Applicant’s translation). Providing the thermal-electric cooling device of CHEN such that it is instead circulates cooling flow as taught by LEE would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings. It has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP § 2143 (I) B. In the instant case, the substitution of the known (refrigerant circulating cooling plate) for another known element (i.e., thermoelectric cooling plate) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of a refrigerant circulating cooling plate would have yielded predictable results (cooling of the second surface), in order to cool the opposite side of the substrate for protection.
As to the limitation, “a temperature of the cooling agent flow is at least 14C lower than a temperature of the cooling gas flow” is a functional recitation and is accorded little patentable weight because it does not distinguish the claimed invention in terms of structure. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original) and “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2114.
Notably, CHEN further teaches the amount of and the position of cooling can be provided according to need (¶0017) and LEE teaches providing cooling as needed to prevent electrode layer decomposition where undesired (page 13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a temperature of the cooling agent flow so it is at least 14C lower than a temperature of the cooling gas flow, in order to protect both surfaces of the substrate, since it has been held that the optimization of result effective variables by routine experimentation was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
PNG
media_image6.png
1358
1044
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Prior art rejections have not been made for Claims 12-14, though the claims are indefinite for their dependence on indefinite Claim 1.
While cited as teaching analogous aspects of Claims 12-14 in the search report, no rejections are made for claims 12-14 in view of LEE because in LEE the at least one recess is NOT formed on a surface of the laser etching platform that is in contact with the second surface of the substrate. As shown in Figure 5 of LEE, the second surface faces away from the laser and the recess.
PNG
media_image7.png
488
962
media_image7.png
Greyscale
GB-2506347-A is deemed relevant to touch panel electrode layers formed by laser ablation.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a to 4:30p EST Monday & Tuesday and 8:00a to 2:00p Wednesday, and is OFF Thursday and 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian, can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
June 13, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights