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 term “about” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The length of.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US 20100147814 A1), hereinafter Watanabe.
PNG
media_image1.png
394
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 Watanabe
PNG
media_image2.png
356
469
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 Watanabe
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a laser (Fig. 7: 12) (Par. 12: “a laser emitter 12”) that directs a laser beam toward a substrate; a chuck (Fig. 7: 11) (Par. 71: “the stage 11 is in the shape of, for example, a flat plate arranged to extend horizontally”) spaced apart from the laser in a first direction; and a lower particle blocker (Fig. 7: 15) (Par. 75: “a shield member 15”) disposed between the chuck and the laser, wherein the lower particle blocker includes a first particle blocker (Fig. 7: 23) (Par. 91: “shield plates 23”), wherein the first particle blocker includes a first slit (Fig. 5: 21) (Par. 91: “the slit 21”) that penetrates the first particle blocker in the first direction, and wherein the first slit extends along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 5: 21) (Par. 91: “mask member 22 to extend along the slit 21”).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe discloses the lower particle blocker includes two first slits, and wherein the two first slits are spaced apart from each other in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction. (Fig. 5: 22) (Par. 92: “For example, the mask member 22 may be in the shape of a flat plate, and may include a plurality ones of the plate-like slit 21 arranged parallel to each other”)
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe discloses a width of the first slit measured in a third direction decreases along the first direction, the third direction is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, and wherein a cross-section of the first slit has a shape of an isosceles trapezoid. (Fig. 5,7: 15) (Par. 76)
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Yukihiro (WO 2007094348 A1 ), hereinafter Yukihiro.
PNG
media_image3.png
334
465
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yukihiro Fig. 1
PNG
media_image4.png
403
537
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yukihiro Fig. 8
PNG
media_image5.png
454
741
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yukihiro Fig. 11
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe does not explicitly disclose a rotational driver that rotates the first particle blocker about an axis that extends in the first direction. Watanabe does disclose that the slits are only limited in orientation to that of where the substrate is to be cut (Watanabe Fig. 5) (Par. 126: “The shield member 15 is not limited to the mask shape, and it may be formed of only the shield plates extending in a direction in which the substrate is cut.”).
Yukihiro is a laser scribing apparatus capable of cutting lines into a substrate and driving the substrate in various directions to further process the piece. This relates to Watanabe’s intent of cutting multiple slits into a substrate. Yukihiro teaches L-shaped members 32x and 32y fitted with light shielding plates 322x and 322y attached directly onto mounting surface 31 to block light from irradiating specific regions of substrate K (Yukihiro Figs. 1, 11) (Par. 25). Yukihiro further teaches a rotational driver that rotates the light blockers 32x and 32y in conjunction with substrate K about an axis that extends in the first direction. (Yukihiro Fig. 1: 43) (Par. 42)
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 attach a rotational driver to the stage (11) to rotate the substrate. As Watanabe allows for the orientations of the slits to be in any direction, attaching the rotating apparatus 43 of Yukihiro would allow for the angle of the substrate 10 to change and be cut at multiple angles.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe does not explicitly disclose that a rotational driver is spaced apart from the first particle blocker.
Yukihiro is a laser scribing apparatus capable of cutting lines into a substrate and driving the substrate in various directions to further process the piece. This relates to Watanabe’s intent of cutting multiple slits into a substrate. Yukihiro teaches a rotational driver spaced apart from the first particle blocker. (Fig. 1: 43) (Par. 26)
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 space a rotational driver apart from the first blocker (15). As is shown in Fig. 1, the rotational driver is placed beneath and spaced apart from the substrate, table (3) and shielding plates (322) to make the driver capable of rotating multiple components of the apparatus.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Yamaguchi (US 20230191538 A1), hereinafter Yamaguchi.
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe discloses a first plate (Fig. 5: 22) (Par. 92: “the mask member 22 may be in the shape of a flat plate”); and a protrusion that protrudes from a top surface of the first plate in the first direction (Fig. 5: 22) (Par. 92: “the mask member 22 may be in the shape of a flat plate”), and wherein the first slit penetrates the first particle blocker in the first direction and connects a bottom surface of the first plate to a top surface of the protrusion (Fig. 5) (Par. 76) .
Watanabe does not disclose the protrusion including a material different from a material of the first plate.
Yamaguchi, like Watanabe, relates to laser processing of a workpiece using a laser beam and also includes a laser beam shielding member positioned adjacent to the laser processing region for preventing leakage of laser light during laser processing. Yamaguchi teaches a protrusion including a material different from a material of the first plate. (Fig. 4: 7) (Par. 120)
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 make the mask member (15) out of either metal or rubber or to have a rubber sheet atop the shield 23. According to Yamaguchi, having the faces of the shield members facing the laser absorb more light prevents excess light from being reflected outward, potentially damaging the workpiece or laser (Par. 120-121). Having the protrusions be made from metal would allow for the slits to degrade less from constant interaction with debris and having the plate itself be made from rubber would allow for less damage to be applied onto the substrate itself from plate interaction.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe.
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe does not explicitly disclose an upper particle blocker disposed on the chuck, wherein the upper particle blocker includes: a fluid sprayer; and a second particle blocker disposed under the fluid sprayer, wherein the second particle blocker includes a second slit that penetrates the second particle blocker in the first direction, and wherein the fluid sprayer sprays a fluid toward the second slit.
PNG
media_image6.png
334
503
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 Watanabe
PNG
media_image7.png
309
459
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 Watanabe
Watanabe discloses having a particle blocker on the other side of the substrate, allowing it to block the debris created from cutting rather than the debris attaching to the substrate (Fig. 9: 28) (Par. 112) as well as having the blocker be placed on both sides of the substrate (Par. 126). This would create an upper particle blocker (Fig. 5: 22) (Par. 92: “the mask member 22 may be in the shape of a flat plate”) disposed on the chuck, wherein the upper particle blocker includes: a fluid sprayer (Fig. 6: 26) (Par. 100); and a second particle blocker disposed under the fluid sprayer (Fig. 5: 23) (Par. 126), wherein the second particle blocker includes a second slit that penetrates the second particle blocker in the first direction (Fig. 5: 21) (Par. 91: “the slit 21”), and wherein the fluid sprayer sprays a fluid toward the second slit (An exhaust port beneath the substrate intaking air requires air to flow in from above the substrate spraying fluid gas downward toward the second slit).
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 attach the plate (22) of Watanabe on the end of the substrate opposite to the laser. This would allow for the debris to attach to the surface of the blocker rather than that of the substrate (Fig. 9: 28) (Par. 112).
Claims 8-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Furuta (US 20100044358 A1), hereinafter Furuta.
PNG
media_image8.png
439
551
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Furuta Fig. 2
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe discloses a laser emitter (Fig. 7: 12) configured to emit a laser beam toward a workpiece supported by a stage/chuck for laser processing (Fig. 7: 12) (Par. 12: “a laser emitter 12”). Watanabe further discloses that the laser beam emitted from the laser emitter 12 irradiates the processing region of the workpiece through the opening of mask member 15.
However, Watanabe is silent as to the specific structure of the laser emitter 12. Watanabe does not disclose a focusing lens or a mirror that reflects the laser beam generated from the laser generator toward the chuck; a polarizing beam splitter disposed between the laser generator and the focusing lens or the mirror; and an optical sensor that detects a light beam reflected from the polarizing beam splitter.
Furuta teaches a focusing lens or a mirror (Fig. 2: 32, 32) (Par. 28: “a total reflection mirror 32 for changing the traveling direction of the laser beam, and a focusing lens 33 for focusing the laser beam”) that reflects the laser beam generated from the laser generator toward the chuck; a polarizing beam splitter (Fig. 2: 42,43) (Par. 36: ” a partial transmission mirror 42 and a beam splitter 43”) disposed between the laser generator (Fig. 2: 31) (Par. 36: “the oscillator 31”) and the focusing lens or the mirror (Fig. 2: 442a-b) (Par. 49); and an optical sensor (Fig. 2: 82) (Par. 56: “reflects any incoming radiation onto the sensors 82”) that detects a light beam reflected from the polarizing beam splitter.
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 include the beam splitter and optical sensor of Furuta to the substrate processing apparatus of Watanabe between the laser emitter (12) and the mask (15). According to Furuta, including the sensing apparatus will allow for control of the focus position in real time without preliminary measuring of surface displacement to improve processing efficiency (Fig. 2) (Par. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe discloses a chuck (Fig. 7: 11) (Par. 71: “the stage 11 is in the shape of, for example, a flat plate arranged to extend horizontally”); and a laser (Fig. 7: 12) (Par. 12: “a laser emitter 12”) that directs a laser beam toward a substrate disposed on the chuck, wherein the laser includes: a laser generator (Fig. 7: 12) (Par. 12: “a laser emitter 12”);
Watanabe does not disclose a focusing lens or a mirror that reflects the laser beam generated from the laser generator toward the substrate on the chuck; a polarizing beam splitter disposed between the laser generator and the focusing lens or the mirror; and an optical sensor that detects a light beam reflected from the polarizing beam splitter.
Furuta teaches a focusing lens or a mirror (Fig. 2: 32, 32) (Par. 28: “a total reflection mirror 32 for changing the traveling direction of the laser beam, and a focusing lens 33 for focusing the laser beam”) that reflects the laser beam generated from the laser generator toward the chuck; a polarizing beam splitter (Fig. 2: 42,43) (Par. 36: ” a partial transmission mirror 42 and a beam splitter 43”) disposed between the laser generator (Fig. 2: 31) (Par. 36: “the oscillator 31”) and the focusing lens or the mirror (Fig. 2: 442a-b) (Par. 49); and an optical sensor (Fig. 2: 82) (Par. 56: “reflects any incoming radiation onto the sensors 82”) that detects a light beam reflected from the polarizing beam splitter.
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 include the beam splitter and optical sensor of Furuta to the substrate processing apparatus of Watanabe between the laser emitter (12) and the mask (15). According to Furuta, including the sensing apparatus will allow for control of the focus position in real time without preliminary measuring of surface displacement to improve processing efficiency (Fig. 2) (Par. 10).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe discloses an upper particle blocker disposed on the chuck (Fig. 5: 22) (Par. 92: “the mask member 22 may be in the shape of a flat plate”), wherein the upper particle blocker includes a second particle blocker (Fig. 5: 28) (Par. 110: “a pair of shield plates 28”), wherein the second particle blocker includes a second slit (Fig. 5: 28) (Par. 110: “a pair of shield plates 28”) that vertically penetrates the second particle blocker.
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe discloses the upper particle blocker further includes a fluid sprayer (Fig. 6: 26) (Par. 100) disposed on the second particle blocker, wherein the fluid sprayer sprays a fluid toward the second slit (An exhaust port beneath the substrate intaking air requires air to flow in from above the substrate spraying fluid gas downward toward the second slit).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe discloses a lower particle blocker (Fig. 7: 15) (Par. 75: “a shield member 15”) disposed between the chuck and the laser, wherein the lower particle blocker includes a first particle blocker (Fig. 7: 23) (Par. 91: “shield plates 23”), wherein the first particle blocker includes a first slit (Fig. 5: 21) (Par. 91: “the slit 21”) that vertically penetrates the first particle blocker, and wherein the first slit extends in a horizontal direction (Fig. 5: 21) (Par. 91: “mask member 22 to extend along the slit 21”).
Regarding claim 17, Watanabe discloses the first particle blocker further comprises: a first plate (Fig. 5: 22) (Par. 92: “the mask member 22 may be in the shape of a flat plate”); and a protrusion that protrudes from a top surface of the first plate in a direction in which the chuck and the laser are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 5: 22) (Par. 92: “the mask member 22 may be in the shape of a flat plate”).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Furuta, as applied to claim 12, and in further view of Yukihiro.
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe discloses the lower particle blocker includes two first slits. (Fig. 5: 21) (Par. 92: “For example, the mask member 22 may be in the shape of a flat plate, and may include a plurality ones of the plate-like slit 21 arranged parallel to each other”)
Watanabe does not disclose the lower particle blocker further includes a rotational driver that rotates the first particle blocker about an axis that extends in a direction in which the chuck and the laser are spaced apart from each other.
Yukihiro teaches a rotational driver that rotates the first particle blocker about an axis that extends in the first direction. (Fig. 1: 43) (Par. 26)
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 space a rotational driver apart from the first blocker (15). As is shown in Fig. 1, the rotational driver is placed beneath and spaced apart from the substrate, table (3) and shielding plates (322) to make the driver capable of rotating multiple components of the apparatus.
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 4 above and is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Furuta, as applied to claim 12, and in further view of Murase (US 20090068598 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Watanabe does not explicitly disclose a length of the first slit ranging from about 0.5 cm to about 1.5 cm.
PNG
media_image9.png
418
396
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Murase Fig. 11
Murase and Watanabe are analogous art as both references relate to laser processing of substrates for use in display panels, including the use of structures positioned in association with a laser irradiation region during processing to minimize debris interacting with the substrate. Murase teaches an opening 42a having a size that is 0.5 mm to 1 mm larger than the beam size (Fig. 11:42a) (Par. 86: “In this example, the opening 42a is 0.5 mm to 1 mm larger than the beam size”), and further teaches a laser beam having a cross-sectional width dimension approximately 10 mm x 10 mm (Par. 126: “the excimer laser has an initial beam cross-section with a dimension of about 10.times.10 mm”). Accordingly, Murase disclosed opening dimensions to its disclosed laser beam dimensions results in an opening dimension of approximately 10.5 mm to 11 mm, which falls within the claimed range of about 0.5 cm to about 1.5 cm.
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 have the width of the slit greater than that of the beam width. This range would allow for Watanabe’s intention of having the width of the slit be greater than that of the beam irradiation region A (Fig. 7: A) (Par. 76: “The inner diameter of the bottom of the opening is larger than the laser irradiation region A.”).
Claims 14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Furuta, as applied to claim 12, and in further view of Yamaguchi.
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe does not disclose the first particle blocker including metal and/or rubber.
Yamaguchi teaches the first particle blocker includes metal and/or rubber. (Fig. 4: 7) (Par. 120)
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 make the mask member out of either metal and/or rubber or to have a rubber sheet atop the shield 23. According to Yamaguchi, having the faces of the shield members facing the laser absorb more light prevents excess light from being reflected outward, potentially damaging the workpiece or laser (Par. 120-121). Having the protrusions be made from metal would allow for the slits to degrade less from constant interaction with debris and having the plate itself be made from rubber would allow for less damage to be applied onto the substrate itself from plate interaction.
PNG
media_image10.png
424
480
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Yamaguchi Fig. 4
Regarding claim 17, Watanabe does not disclose the first particle blocker including metal and/or rubber.
Yamaguchi teaches the first particle blocker includes metal and/or rubber. (Fig. 4: 7) (Par. 120)
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 make the mask member out of either metal and/or rubber or to have a rubber sheet atop the shield 23. According to Yamaguchi, having the faces of the shield members facing the laser absorb more light prevents excess light from being reflected outward, potentially damaging the workpiece or laser (Par. 120-121). Having the protrusions be made from metal would allow for the slits to degrade less from constant interaction with debris and having the plate itself be made from rubber would allow for less damage to be applied onto the substrate itself from plate interaction.
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe discloses the first slit penetrates the first particle blocker in a first direction and connects a bottom surface of the first plate to a top surface of the protrusion.
Watanabe does not disclose the protrusion including a material different from a material of the first plate.
Yamaguchi teaches the protrusion including a material different from a material of the first plate. (Fig. 4: 7) (Par. 120)
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 make the mask member out of either metal or rubber or to have a rubber sheet atop the shield 23. According to Yamaguchi, having the faces of the shield members facing the laser absorb more light prevents excess light from being reflected outward, potentially damaging the workpiece or laser (Par. 120-121). Having the protrusions be made from metal would allow for the slits to degrade less from constant interaction with debris and having the plate itself be made from rubber would allow for less damage to be applied onto the substrate itself from plate interaction.
Regarding claim 19, Watanabe discloses a width of the first slit decreases along a direction in which the chuck and the laser are spaced apart from each other. (Fig. 5,7: 15) (Par. 76)
Regarding claim 20, Watanabe discloses a cross-section of the first slit has a shape of an isosceles trapezoid. (Fig. 5,7: 15) (Par. 76)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM YONAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7759. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 am - 5 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/ADAM YONAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights