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 § 112
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.
The rejection of Claim 4 has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bai in view of Therault does not teach or obviate claim 1, because: “there is no indication within the references why one skilled in the art would have modified…Bai…in view of Therault…Further to this point, there is no reasonable expectation of success in including the axicon lens 44 of Theriault into Bai” [Page 10, Par 1-2].
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Theriault does teach the motivation of including an axicon lens in a display device for the purpose of converting the input beam into an intermediate non-diffracting beam [Par 76].
Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Thus, Bai in view of Theriault would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to use a axicon lens as a scan lens.
Thus, the rejection of claim 1 (and thus claims 2-5, 9-11, 14-17, and 20) is sustained and made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-11, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (US 20130076852 A1) in view of Theriault (US 20140008549 A1) and Elliot (US 20090323739 A1).
Re Claim 1, Bai discloses, on Fig. 2 and 5, an apparatus for manufacturing a display device, the apparatus comprising: a light source (laser module 120) for generating a first beam; a a relay lens (collimating lens 130) for converting the second beam into a third beam; a scanner comprising a first mirror ( approach mirror 140) for reflecting the third beam in a first direction and a second mirror (polygon mirror 150) for reflecting the third beam in a second direction different from the first direction (reflection beam directions are different); and a scan lens (scan optics 160) having an effective focal length and being for converting the third beam output from the scanner into a fourth beam, the scan lens (See Fig. 5) comprising a first lens (lens 501) having a first focal length, a second lens (lens 502) having a second focal length, a third lens (lens 503) having a third focal length, a fourth lens (lens 504) having a fourth focal length, a fifth lens (lens 505) having a fifth focal length, wherein an absolute value of the first focal length is smaller than an absolute value of each of the second through fifth focal lengths (See Table 1 where the calculated absolute value of the focal lengths are as follows; f1=86.37, f2=90.983, f3=126.75, f4=98.79, f5=299.04 mm).
But Bai does not explicitly disclose: a beam converter comprising an axicon lens for converting the first beam into a second beam, scan lens including a cover window.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Theriault teaches, on Fig. 5a, that it is desirable in image display systems to include wherein a beam converter comprising an axicon (axicon lens 44) [Par 76] lens for converting the first beam into a second beam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bai with Theriault in order to convert the input beam into an intermediate non-diffracting beam as taught by Theriault [Par 76].
But Bai in view of Theriault does not explicitly disclose, a scan lens including a cover window.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Elliot teaches, on Fig. 2, that it is desirable in image displays to include, a scan lens including a cover window (window 90 for scan lens 88) [Par 62].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bai in view of Theriault with Elliot in order to provide change the incident angle of the beam, as taught by Elliot [Par 77].
Re claim 2, Bai in view of Theriault and Elliot discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, and Bai further discloses on Fig. 5, wherein the first through fifth lenses (lenses 501-505) are in sequence and Elliot further discloses, on Fig. 2, the cover window is sequentially arranged with the lens (window 90 is on image side of lens 88) [Par 77].
Re Claim 3, Bai in view of Theriault and Elliot discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, and Theriault further discloses on Fig. 5a, wherein the first beam is a Gaussian beam (laser 28 outputs a Gaussian beam)[Par 70] , the second beam is a raw Bessel beam (axicon 44 transforms incident beam into Bessel beam) [Par 77-78], the third beam is a ring-shaped beam (transform lens 48 turns Bessel beam into annular beam) [Par 91], and the fourth beam is a final Bessel beam (objective 50 transforms annular beam into a Bessel beam) [Par 102].
Re Claim 5, Bai in view of Theriault and Elliot discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, and Bai further discloses on Fig. 2, wherein the first mirror is configured to deflect the third beam in the first direction by a first angle (Fig. 2 shows: mirror 140 deflects third beam in a direction), and wherein the second mirror is configured to deflect the third beam in the second direction by a second angle (Fig. 2: polygon mirror 150 deflects third beam in a second direction by another angle).
Re Claim 9, Bai in view of Theriault and Elliot discloses, the apparatus of claim 5, and Elliot discloses on Fig. 5a and 8, wherein an effective length of the second beam is longer than an effective length of the fourth beam (See Fig. 8, focal length of lens 48 and thus distance from axicon to lens 48 is 60 mm and focal length of objective lens 50 is the distance from lens 50 to the image plane for similar reasons is 8.25 mm) [Par 151].
Re Claim 10, Bai in view of Theriault and Elliot discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, and Theriault further discloses on Fig. 5a, wherein a distance between the relay lens (lens 48) and the axicon lens (lens 44) is equal to a distance between the relay lens and an entrance pupil of the scanner (Fig. 5a: both distances are
f
α
).
Re Claim 11, Bai in view of Theriault and Elliot discloses, the apparatus of claim 10, and Theriault further discloses, wherein the distance between the relay lens and the axicon lens and the distance between the relay lens and the entrance pupil of the scanner are equal to a sixth focal length, the sixth focal length being a focal length of the relay lens (this distance is
f
α
) [Par 93].
Re Claim 14, Bai in view of Theriault and Elliot discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, and Bai further discloses on Fig. 2, wherein a distance between an entrance pupil of the scanner and the first lens (pupil distance 159 is 35 mm) [Par 45] is greater than a distance between the first lens and the second lens (See Table 1, rear thickness of first lens is 12.8 mm).
Re Claim 15, Bai in view of Theriault and Elliot discloses, the apparatus of claim 14, and Bai further discloses on Fig. 2, wherein the distance between the entrance pupil of the scanner and the first lens is in a range of 15 mm to 50 mm (pupil distance is 35 mm) [Par 45].
Re Claim 16, Bai in view of Theriault and Elliot discloses, the apparatus of claim 14, and Bai discloses on Fig. 5, wherein the distance between the first lens and the second lens is greater than a distance between the second lens and the third lens (Table 1: distance between first and second lens is 12.8 mm and thickness between second and third lens is 0, See Fig. 5 where the second and third lens are touching).
Re Claim 17, Bai in view of Theriault and Elliot discloses, the apparatus of claim 16, and Bai discloses on Fig. 5 and Table 1, wherein the distance between the second lens and the third lens is equal to a distance between the third lens and the fourth lens and a distance between the fourth lens and the fifth lens (Table 1: Distance between second and third, third and further, and fourth and fifth lens is 0).
Re Claim 20, Bai in view of Theriault and Elliot discloses, a display device manufactured by using the apparatus of claim 1, and Bai furher discloses on Fig. 2, the display device comprising: a glass substrate having a first surface, a second surface facing the first surface, a side surface connected to the first surface, and a first inclined surface extending between the side surface and the second surface; and a display area having a plurality of emission areas on the first surface of the glass substrate, wherein the side surface and the first inclined surface are formed by irradiating a laser beam to form first laser irradiation areas and then separating the glass substrate from a mother substrate along the first laser irradiation areas through an etching process, and wherein the laser beam is the fourth beam of the apparatus for manufacturing the display device of claim 1 (final scanning beam of Bai scans imaging surface 110 with a laser)[Par 23-28].
In regards to the limitation, “…a glass substrate having a first surface, a second surface facing the first surface, a side surface connected to the first surface, and a first inclined surface extending between the side surface and the second surface; and a display area having a plurality of emission areas on the first surface of the glass substrate, wherein the side surface and the first inclined surface are formed by irradiating a laser beam to form first laser irradiation areas and then separating the glass substrate from a mother substrate along the first laser irradiation areas through an etching process,”, the court has held that claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-8, 12-13, and 18-19 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maeda (US 20080144152 A1) also teaches an optical scanning system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights