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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 11/05/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-8 and 10 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US6574024 of record) hereinafter Liu in view of Furuya et al. (US5430816 of record) hereinafter Furuya.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches:
A laser processing equipment (Fig 1), comprising:
a laser unit (Fig 1), comprising:
a pulsed laser light source, configured to provide a pulsed laser beam (Fig 1: laser 110; col 1, ln 45-55);
a vibration mirror, configured to turn the pulsed laser beam (Fig 1: beam scanner 114; col 3, ln 54-col 4, ln 2);
a mask, configured to receive the pulsed laser beam (Fig 1-2: mask 120; col 3, ln 40-53), wherein the mask has a plurality of openings distributed along a first direction (Fig 2: apertures 210), and the plurality of openings are configured to allow the pulsed laser beam to pass through (col 3, ln 40-53); and
a focusing module, configured to respectively focus the pulsed laser beam passing through the plurality of openings into a plurality of laser spots distributed along the first direction (Fig 1: lens 122, 126; col 3, ln 30-39); and
a carrier, configured to carry a processing element (Fig 1: stage 128, work piece 130),
the pulsed laser light source operates in a pulse on demand (POD) mode (col 3, ln 18-24).
Liu does not teach a carrier, configured to carry a plurality of processing elements, wherein the plurality of processing elements are disposed corresponding to distribution positions of the plurality of laser spots along the first direction, wherein the plurality of laser spots correspondingly generated by the plurality of openings correspond to a plurality of sequentially non-adjacent processing elements.
In the same field of endeavor regarding laser processing, Furuya teaches a carrier, configured to carry a plurality of sequentially non-adjacent processing elements, wherein the plurality of processing elements are disposed corresponding to distribution positions of a plurality of laser spots along a first direction (Fig 8: workpieces 28, workpiece carrier 19; col 17, ln 59-col 18, ln 2) for the motivation of executing a plurality of operations simultaneously (col 1, ln 12-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carrier as taught by Liu with the carrier as taught by Furuya in order to execute a plurality of operations simultaneously.
Liu further teaches the plurality of laser spots correspondingly generated by the plurality of openings (Fig 1-2; col 3, ln 40-53).
Furuya further teaches the plurality of processing elements are disposed corresponding to distribution positions of a plurality of laser spots along a first direction (Fig 8; col 17, ln 59-col 18, ln 2).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches wherein the plurality of laser spots correspondingly generated by the plurality of openings correspond to a plurality of sequentially non-adjacent processing elements.
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Furuya teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Liu further teaches wherein the vibration mirror turns the pulsed laser beam, so that a first irradiation range of the pulsed laser beam covers at least one of the plurality of openings (Fig 2, 4; col 3, ln 40-53).
Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Furuya teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Liu further teaches wherein the vibration mirror turns the pulsed laser beam, so that a second irradiation range of the pulsed laser beam sequentially covers a plurality of adjacent openings along the first direction (Fig 2, 4; col 3, ln 40-53).
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Furuya teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Liu further teaches wherein the vibration mirror turns the pulsed laser beam, so that a third irradiation range of the pulsed laser beam sequentially covers a plurality of non-adjacent openings (Fig 2, 4; col 3, ln 40-53).
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Furuya teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Liu in view of Furuya does not explicitly recite wherein the vibration mirror continuously rotates, so that the pulsed laser beam forms an elongated fourth irradiation range on the mask.
However, "apparatus 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). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114.
Liu teaches that the laser is capable of scanning any area within the range of the apertures of the mask (Fig 2, 4; col 3, ln 40-53). Therefore the prior art apparatus would be capable of forming the claimed elongated fourth irradiation range on the mask.
Furthermore, since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Furuya teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Liu in view of Furuya does not explicitly recite wherein the fourth irradiation range is asymmetrical relative to the opening.
However, "apparatus 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). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114.
Liu teaches that the laser is capable of scanning any are within the range of the apertures of the mask (Fig 2, 4; col 3, ln 40-53). Therefore the prior art apparatus would be capable of forming the claimed asymmetrical irradiation range relative to the opening.
Furthermore, since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
Regarding claim 10, Liu in view of Furuya teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Liu further teaches wherein the mask has a plurality of groups of openings arranged along a second direction, and each of the groups of openings has a plurality of openings distributed along the first direction (Fig 2).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Furuya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US8842144 of record).
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Furuya teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Liu further teaches a control unit (computer; col 3, ln 1).
Liu further teaches a continuous rotation of the vibration mirror (col 4, ln 16-36), in a pulse on demand mode (col 3, ln 1-4), the control unit drives the pulsed laser light source (col 3, ln 1-4), and when a projection range of the pulsed laser beam is aligned with the plurality of openings, the pulsed laser light source emits the pulsed laser beam (col 4, ln 16-36).
Liu in view of Furuya does not teach that the control unit is configured to perform the above functions.
In the same field of endeavor regarding laser processing, Kim teaches a control unit of a laser processing apparatus for the motivation of controlling a laser beam generator, an optical system, a substrate stage, and a mask (col 4, ln 8-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the control unit as taught by Liu in view of Furuya to control the operations of the subcomponents as taught by Kim in order to provide control of a laser beam generator, an optical system, a substrate stage, and a mask.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Furuya as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sercel et al. (US2007/0017908 of record) hereinafter Sercel.
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Furuya teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Liu in view of Furuya does not teach wherein a length of the fourth irradiation range is less than twice an opening width of the plurality of openings.
In the same field of endeavor regarding laser processing, Sercel teaches that a laser irradiation range may have a length relative to the width of the plurality of openings that overlaps with the claimed range for the motivation of providing a desired effective power density ([0021-0023]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the relative sizes of the laser irradiation range and openings as taught by Furuya that overlaps with the claimed range in order to provide a desired effective power density.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Furuya does not teach the plurality of laser spots correspondingly generated by the plurality of openings correspond to a plurality of sequentially non-adjacent processing elements, and the pulsed laser light source operates in a pulse on demand (POD) mode.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Liu teaches the pulsed laser light source operates in a pulse on demand (POD) mode. Although not explicitly labeled pulse on demand, Liu teaches that the laser is a pulse laser operated at a pulse repetition frequency of 1 kHz (col 3, ln 18-24).
Liu further teaches the plurality of laser spots correspondingly generated by the plurality of openings (Fig 1-2; col 3, ln 40-53).
Furuya further teaches the plurality of sequentially non-adjacent are disposed corresponding to distribution positions of a plurality of laser spots along a first direction (Fig 8; col 17, ln 59-col 18, ln 2).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches wherein the plurality of laser spots correspondingly generated by the plurality of openings correspond to a plurality of sequentially non-adjacent processing elements.
Applicant appears to argue that the prior art does not teach aspects of applicant specification as it pertains to the claimed “pulse on demand mode”. However, the examiner notes that that the claims simply recite “the pulsed laser light source operates in a pulse on demand (POD) mode” with no further limitations required. The examiner further notes that applicant has not provided any evidence that the “pulse on demand” should be given any scope other than its plain meaning under BRI. See MPEP 2111.01. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the examiner notes that limitations directed to the operation of the above laser are functional in nature, and "apparatus 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). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114. 18. The prior art describes a mode of operation that falls within the scope of pulse on demand as shown above. Furthermore, since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741