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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0260640) in view of Jung et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0076400).
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan et al. disclose: a laser light source system, configured to simultaneously irradiate a plurality of spots on a sample, the laser light source system comprising: a laser light source (800), configured to provide a laser beam (Fig. 8A, [0054]); a collimator lens (802, 803), disposed on a path of the laser beam to generate a collimated beam (Fig. 8A, [0054]-[0056]); a diffractive optical component (808), disposed on a path of the collimated beam to generate a plurality of sub beams (Fig. 8A, [0054]-[0056]); and a refractive component (809), wherein the display substrate is disposed on a focal plane of the refractive component, so as to utilize the sub beams to irradiate the sample (Fig. 8A, [0054]-[0056]).
Sullivan et al. do not disclose: simultaneously irradiate the pads on the display substrate and the light emitting components to bond the light emitting components to the pads.
Jung et al. disclose: irradiate the pads on the display substrate and the light emitting components to bond the light emitting components to the pads ([0123]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sullivan by using the device of Sullivan to irradiate a plurality of pads on a display substrate in order to irradiate a plurality of pads on the substrate and to bond a plurality of light emitting components to the pads.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8A of Sullivan
Regarding claim 2, Sullivan as modified disclose: wherein the display substrate has a plurality of pixels (cells) (Fig. 3A, [0046]), each of the pixels comprises at least one of the pads (PA) (Fig. 3A, [0047]), and the diffractive optical component is designed according to a pitch of the pixels (implicitly taught by the device of Sullivan as modified).
Regarding claim 3, Sullivan as modified disclose: wherein the sub beams form a plurality of light spots discrete from each other, and the light spots completely cover the corresponding pads (magnification changer 807 is used to adjust the size of the spot, size of spot could be changed to completely cover the pads) (Fig. 8A, [0054]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 6, Sullivan as modified do not disclose: wherein a ratio of a total area of the pads being covered to an area of a corresponding one of the light spots is 0.5% to 9%.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a laser light source system irradiating a plurality of pads, the pads are covered by a corresponding light spot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the ratio of a total area of the pads being covered to an area of a corresponding one of the light spots by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 7, Sullivan as modified disclose: wherein the light spots irradiate the pads on the display substrate and the light emitting components in a form of a two-dimensional array (the device of Sullivan as modified would irradiate the pads on the display substrate in the form of a two-dimensional array, see Fig. 3A of Jung) .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 8 and 9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…further comprising a mask, disposed between the collimator lens and the diffractive optical component, wherein the mask has a patterned slit, and a shape of the patterned slit corresponds to a pad configuration pattern of the display substrate.”
Claim 8 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein quantities of the light spots differ in two non-parallel directions.”
Claim 9 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein intervals of the light spots differ in two non-parallel directions.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kishimoto (US PG Pub 2019/0082151) discloses: a projector projects an image on an object in a focus-free manner. The projector includes a transmissive spatial light modulator (20) that forms a two-dimensional pattern for defining the image; and a laser light source (10) that irradiates the spatial light modulator (20) with laser light (30). The spatial light modulator (20) generates a bundle of a plurality of light beams (300), having a spatial intensity distribution of the two-dimensional pattern, from the laser light (30) (Abstract). Kim et al. (US PG Pub 2006/0126184) disclose: an illumination system designed to remove laser speckle and a projection system including the same. The illumination system includes a laser light source having at least one laser, a diffractive optical element to divide a laser beam emitted from the laser light source into a plurality of sub-beams and to periodically move in such a way as to temporally average the speckle of the laser beam, and an optical fiber bundle including a plurality of fibers with the same length to divide the sub-beams into smaller sub-beams. The illumination system divides the laser beam emitted from the laser light source into sub-beams and temporally or spatially averages the sub-beams, thereby effectively reducing or removing laser speckle. The projection system employing the illumination system can provide improved image quality (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Minsun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights