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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/21/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-143326, filed on 09/06/2021.
Claim Interpretation
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: a movement mechanism in claim 4.
Three Prong test:
Prong I: movement mechanism (Generic placeholder)
Prong II: that moves a substrate (Function)
Prong III: No structure
The specification recites “[0045] Furthermore, laser annealing device 1 may include a movement mechanism (not illustrated). The movement mechanism moves (changes the position of) substrate W on the surface of which amorphous silicon film W1 is deposited. The movement mechanism is, for example, a movable stage on which substrate W is placed. By moving substrate W by the movement mechanism, a wide region of amorphous silicon film W1 can be irradiated with laser beam Li even without galvanometer mirror 4.”. The examiner interprets this language as a stage that can move in at least one axis.
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 1-4 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.
The controller is not able to achieve the result of the claimed language in claim 1. Claim 1 recites “the controller selects at least one or more of the laser light sources for turning on emission of the laser beams from among the plurality of laser light sources in accordance with any crystal grain size of the amorphous silicon film.” The controller needs an input device to achieve the ability to measure the crystal grain measurement. Regarding the specification, it recites “ Here, in a monitoring step before a laser annealing step, a crystal grain size of amorphous silicon film W1 is measured. The crystal grain size is measured by various known methods.”. It is unclear how the controller achieves the measurement of the crystal grain size.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: The crystal grain measurement device, the specification recites “ Here, in a monitoring step before a laser annealing step, a crystal grain size of amorphous silicon film W1 is measured. The crystal grain size is measured by various known methods.”. It is unclear how the controller achieves the measurement of the crystal grain size. Claim 1 recites “the controller selects at least one or more of the laser light sources for turning on emission of the laser beams from among the plurality of laser light sources in accordance with any crystal grain size of the amorphous silicon film.” The controller needs an input device to achieve the ability to measure the crystal grain measurement.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180159299 A1 – Zhou in view of US 20030226834 A1 - Harada.
Regarding claim 1, Zhou is directed towards an laser system. Zhou does teach a plurality of laser light sources that emit laser beams having mutually different wavelengths ([0045] a different laser head 160 (the four laser heads 160 in FIG. 1A are labeled as laser heads 160-1, 160-2, 160-3, and 160-n; [0017] The laser beam may be composed of multiple wavelengths), a diffraction grating that diffracts the laser beams emitted from the laser light sources ([0061] a dispersive element 635 (which may include, consist essentially of, or consist of, e.g., a reflective or transmissive diffraction grating, a dispersive prism, a grism (prism/grating), a transmission grating, or an Echelle grating)); and a controller that switches on and off states of emission of the laser beams by the laser light sources ([0050] for example, the controller 180 may modulate the output power of the laser beam 110 and/or switch the laser beam 110 on or off during one or more (or even all) of the motion of the laser beam 110 relative to the fiber bundle 140.), the laser light sources are disposed at mutually different positions (Figure 1B shows that the laser head 160n's are in different positions.), and the laser beams emitted from the laser light sources are diffracted on an identical optical axis by the diffraction grating (Figure 6 shows the laser 605 going from the WBC unit 600 through the a reflective or transmissive diffraction grating 625 on the same axis.).
Zhou does not expressly teach the controller selects at least one or more of the laser light sources for turning on emission of the laser beams from among the plurality of laser light sources in accordance with any crystal grain size of the amorphous silicon film.
Harada is directed towards an laser annealer. Harada does teach the controller selects at least one or more of the laser light sources for turning on emission of the laser beams from among the plurality of laser light sources ([0151] A control signal for each illumination head 166 is generated on the basis of image data that have been read by the data processing section) in accordance with any crystal grain size of the amorphous silicon film ([0076] FIG. 26 is a graph showing absorption characteristics of amorphous silicon etc.).
The combination of the controller and amorphous silicon of Harada and the laser heads of Zhou allow the multiple laser heads to be controlled individually and anneal the workpiece precisely. The achieves this by sending signals to each laser head to adjust as needed the power that is used on the amorphous silicon.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou to include the controller selects at least one or more of the laser light sources for turning on emission of the laser beams from among the plurality of laser light sources in accordance with any crystal grain size of the amorphous silicon film because the controller of Harada allows the laser heads of Zhou to be activated individually allowing for focused annealing.
Regarding claim 5, A laser annealing method of irradiating an amorphous silicon film with a laser beam to perform an annealing process, the method comprising: disposing a plurality of laser light sources that emit laser beams having mutually different wavelengths at mutually different positions, the laser beams being diffracted on an identical optical axis by a diffraction grating and selecting at least one or more of the laser light sources for turning on emission of the laser beams from among the plurality of laser light sources in accordance with any crystal grain size of the amorphous silicon film. (See the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180159299 A1 – Zhou and US 20030226834 A1 - Harada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2023042736 A - Yong.
Regarding claim 2, Zhou and Harada does teach the limitations of claim 1. Zhou does not expressly teach the plurality of laser light sources include the laser light source that emits the laser beam having a wavelength between 420 nm and 460 nm (inclusive), and the controller selects a wavelength of the laser beam emitted to the amorphous silicon film from a wavelength range from 420 nm to 460 nm inclusive.
Harada does teach the plurality of laser light sources include the laser light source that emits the laser beam having a wavelength between 420 nm and 460 nm (inclusive) ([0024] is configured so as to form a plurality of emission points that emit laser beams having a wavelength of 350 to 450 nm; and scanner for scanning an annealing surface with the laser beams emitted from the laser light source.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to the plurality of laser light sources include the laser light source that emits the laser beam having a wavelength between 420 nm and 460 nm, since it has been held that Prior Art ranges that overlap claimed ranges provide prima facie case of obviousness.
Yong is directed towards an laser machining device. Yong does teach the controller selects a wavelength of the laser beam emitted to the machining target from a wavelength range.
The combination of the controller Yong with the silicon and wavelength range of Harada allows the system to change individually the laser heads of Zhou to the specific wavelengths of Harada in order to process the silicon of Harada.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harada and Zhou to include the controller selects a wavelength of the laser beam emitted to the machining target from a wavelength range because the ability of changing the wavelengths of the laser heads of Zhou lets the annealing process to be precise.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180159299 A1 – Zhou and US 20030226834 A1 - Harada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20180236602 A1 - Suzuki.
Regarding claim 3, Zhou and Harada does teach the limitations of claim 1. Zhou does not expressly teach a mirror interposed between the amorphous silicon film and the diffraction grating, the mirror irradiating the amorphous silicon film with the laser beam and having a changeable inclination.
Suzuki is directed towards an laser irradiation apparatus. Suzuki does teach a mirror interposed between the amorphous silicon film and the diffraction grating, the mirror irradiating the amorphous silicon film with the laser beam and having a changeable inclination ([0132] FIG. 6, the controller 8 may move the second linear stage 42B to move the first high reflection mirror 31B in the +Y-axis direction and may move the first linear stage 42A to move the first high reflection mirror 31A in the -Y-axis direction.).
The combination of the movable mirrors of Suzuki into the system of Zhou and Harada allows for further manipulation of the laser to process the silicon.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou and Harada to include a mirror interposed between the amorphous silicon film and the diffraction grating, the mirror irradiating the amorphous silicon film with the laser beam and having a changeable inclination because the movable mirrors of Suzuki allows the system of Zhou to be more dynamic and flexible while processing the silicon.
Regarding claim 4, Zhou and Harada does teach the limitations of claim 1. Zhou does not expressly teach a movement mechanism that moves a substrate on which the amorphous silicon film is deposited.
Suzuki does teach a movement mechanism that moves a substrate on which the amorphous silicon film is deposited ([0019] FIG. 13 schematically illustrates an example in which a beam transfer device and a single-axis stage are combined, serving as a second configuration example of a beam property varying section.).
The combination of the movable stage of Suzuki with the laser system of Zhou and Harada allows for more flexibility when processing the silicon by having a single axis movable stage.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou and Harada to include a movement mechanism that moves a substrate on which the amorphous silicon film is deposited because the movable stage of Suzuki allow for more flexibility for the laser system of Zhou and Harada.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20030019854 A1 – Gross does teach a multi-laser beam system that can control the wavelength.
US 20020050488 A1 – Nikitin does teach a controller for multiple lasers for annealing a workpiece.
US 20220048132 A1 – Iorio does teach a controller of a laser device that changes the wavelength of said lasers.
US 20050247683 A1 – Agarwal does teach a laser annealing system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights