DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, “The laser processing unit according to Claim 1, wherein further comprising” should be “The laser processing unit according to Claim 1, further comprising”.
Regarding claim 9, “The laser processing unit according to Claim 1, wherein further comprising” should be “The laser processing unit according to Claim 1, further comprising”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “said one-direction carriable magnification optical unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is rejected as being dependent on claim 3.
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, 4-5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sercel (US 20090127240 A1) in view of SUENAGA (JP 2010039347 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sercel (US 20090127240 A1) teaches a laser processing unit (Figure 1) comprising:
a line-beam forming optical system configured to form a line-shaped laser beam from a laser beam with luminous flux (Paragraph 30, machining system 100 includes a laser 110 for generating a laser beam 112 and a beam slivery system 120 for shaping the laser beam 112; Paragraph 37, optics 200 provide a tightly focused line shaped beam);
an imaging optical system configured to form the line-shaped laser beam on an object to be processed via a mask (Paragraph 39, mask 130 includes one or more apertures 132 defining the shape or pattern that causes the laser beam 112 to be imaged in a shape or pattern on the workpiece 102; Paragraph 37, optical components are used in the beam delivery system 120 to provide a tightly focused line shaped beam)1;
a one-direction variable magnification optical unit (Paragraph 36, beam delivery system 120 includes one or more imaging lenses 122 that provide the reduction of demagnification of the beam); and
a scanning mechanism configured to scan the line-beam relative to said mask, said one-direction variable magnification optical unit and said imaging optical system (Paragraph 39, the mask 130 is stationary and the laser is moved to scan across the mask 130; scanning the laser across the mask would scan the laser relative to all the optical components of the apparatus).
Sercel fails to explicitly teach:
a one-direction variable magnification optical unit including a concave cylindrical lens and a convex cylindrical lens, said concave cylindrical lens and said convex cylindrical lens being arranged along an optical axis and opposite to one another; and
a distance between said concave cylindrical lens and said convex cylindrical lens being changeable in order to change an imaging magnification of said imaging optical system in at least one direction.
SUENAGA (JP 2010039347 A) teaches a projection exposure apparatus with a laser light generator (Paragraph 34), wherein:
a one-direction variable magnification optical unit including a concave cylindrical lens and a convex cylindrical lens, said concave cylindrical lens and said convex cylindrical lens being arranged along an optical axis and opposite to one another (Figure 6 Paragraph 42, pair of lenses 31 and 32 are positioned along and movable along the optical axis direction; Paragraph 45, concave cylindrical lens 31 and a convex cylindrical lens 32 are arranged opposite to one another); and
a distance between said concave cylindrical lens and said convex cylindrical lens being changeable (Paragraph 45, distance between the convex curved surface and the concave curved surface in the cylindrical lens set 31 and 32 is adjusted) in order to change an imaging magnification of said imaging optical system in at least one direction (Paragraph 41, different in magnification is adjusted by varying the spacing between the opposing surfaced surfaces of the projection magnification correction unit 30).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sercel with SUENAGA and have the magnification optical unit comprise a concave cylindrical lens and convex cylindrical lens. This would have been done such that the magnification of the laser light can be continuously corrected (SUENAGA Paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 4, Sercel as modified teaches the laser processing unit according to Claim 1.
SUENAGA further teaches:
the distance is changeable during the scanning of the line-beam (Paragraph 48, drive unit 90 can move at least one of the pair of lenses 31 and 32 parallel along the optical axis; drive unit 90 is fully capable of adjusting the distance between the pair of lenses during the scanning of the laser beam).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Sercel as modified teaches the laser processing unit according to Claim 1.
SUENAGA further teaches:
a curvature of said concave cylindrical lens is different from a curvature of said convex cylindrical lens (Paragraph 26, curvatures of the opposing curved surfaces of the pair of lenses may be slightly different).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Sercel (US 20090127240 A1) teaches an imaging optical system provided in a laser processing unit (Figure 1), said laser processing unit scanning a line-shaped laser beam (Paragraph 37, optics 200 provide a tightly focused line shaped beam) relative to a mask and an object to be processed (Paragraph 39, mask 130 includes one or more apertures 132 defining the shape or pattern that causes the laser beam 112 to be imaged in a shape or pattern on the workpiece 102)2, said imaging optical system comprising:
a one-direction variable magnification optical unit (Paragraph 36, beam delivery system 120 includes one or more imaging lenses 122 that provide the reduction of demagnification of the beam); and
Sercel fails to explicitly teach:
a one-direction variable magnification optical unit including a concave cylindrical lens and a convex cylindrical lens, said concave cylindrical lens and said convex cylindrical lens being arranged along an optical axis and opposite to one another, the line-shaped laser beam passing through said one-direction variable magnification optical unit; and
an actuator configured to change an imaging magnification of said imaging optical system in at least one direction by changing a distance between said concave cylindrical lens and said convex cylindrical lens.
SUENAGA (JP 2010039347 A) teaches a projection exposure apparatus, wherein:
a one-direction variable magnification optical unit including a concave cylindrical lens and a convex cylindrical lens, said concave cylindrical lens and said convex cylindrical lens being arranged along an optical axis and opposite to one another (Figure 6 Paragraph 42, pair of lenses 31 and 32 are positioned along and movable along the optical axis direction; Paragraph 45, concave cylindrical lens 31 and a convex cylindrical lens 32 are arranged opposite to one another), the line-shaped laser beam passing through said one-direction variable magnification optical unit (Paragraph 53, light enters concave cylindrical lens 31 and convex cylindrical lens 32); and
an actuator configured to change an imaging magnification of said imaging optical system in at least one direction (Paragraph 41, different in magnification is adjusted by varying the spacing between the opposing surfaced surfaces of the projection magnification correction unit 30; Paragraph 48, movement is facilitated by drive unit 90) by changing a distance between said concave cylindrical lens and said convex cylindrical lens (Paragraph 45, distance between the convex curved surface and the concave curved surface in the cylindrical lens set 31 and 32 is adjusted).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sercel with SUENAGA and have the magnification optical unit comprise a concave cylindrical lens and convex cylindrical lens. This would have been done such that the magnification of the laser light can be continuously corrected (SUENAGA Paragraph 26).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sercel (US 20090127240 A1) in view of SUENAGA (JP 2010039347 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka (US 20090127477 A1) and Baldwin (US 20080297912 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sercel as modified teaches the laser processing unit according to Claim 1.
Sercel as modified fails to teach:
an isotropic variable magnification optical unit with one lens or a plurality of lenses, said isotropic variable magnification optical unit arranged along the optical axis to change the imaging magnification isotropically.
Tanaka (US 20090127477 A1) teaches a laser irradiation apparatus generating a linear cross sectional laser beam shape (Paragraph 65), comprising:
an isotropic variable magnification optical unit with one lens or a plurality of lenses, said isotropic variable magnification optical unit arranged along the optical axis to change the imaging magnification isotropically (Figure 5A Paragraph 82, condensing lens 505 is positioned downstream of a mask slit as well as a concave and convex lens pair along the optical axis; Paragraph 63, condensing lens 505 is a convex spherical lens)3.
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sercel with Tanaka and have a convex spherical lens positioned downstream of the concave and convex lens pair. This would have been done to condense the laser beam onto the workpiece (Tanaka Paragraph 91).
While Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the spherical lens is configured to change the imaging magnification isotropically, Baldwin (US 20080297912 A1) teaches that it is well known in the art that spherical lenses, such as typical plano-convex lenses, cause rays of light to converge or diverge in all directions and are used to magnify or reduce image size proportionally. Paragraph 40 of the applicant’s specifications filed 03/21/2024 additionally teaches that the isotropic variable magnification optical unit can reasonably consist of a plano-convex lens. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have used a plano-convex lens as the spherical convex lens positioned downstream of the concave and convex lens pair for the purpose of obvious engineering choice.
Regarding claim 3, Sercel as modified teaches the laser processing unit according to Claim 1.
Sercel as modified fails to teach:
said one-direction variable magnification optical unit is closer to said mask than said isotropic variable magnification optical unit.
Tanaka (US 20090127477 A1) teaches a laser irradiation apparatus generating a linear cross sectional laser beam shape (Paragraph 65), comprising:
said one-direction variable magnification optical unit (Figure 5A Paragraph 82, condensing lens 505 is positioned downstream of a mask slit as well as a concave and convex lens pair along the optical axis; Paragraph 63, condensing lens 505 is a convex spherical lens)4 is closer to said mask than said isotropic variable magnification optical unit (Figure 5A, convex lens 104/504 and concave lens 507 are positioned closer to mask 103/503 than condensing lens 105/505).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sercel with Tanaka and have a convex spherical lens positioned downstream of the concave and convex lens pair. This would have been done to condense the laser beam onto the workpiece (Tanaka Paragraph 91).
While Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the spherical lens is configured to change the imaging magnification isotropically, Baldwin (US 20080297912 A1) teaches that it is well known in the art that spherical lenses, such as typical plano-convex lenses, cause rays of light to converge or diverge in all directions and are used to magnify or reduce image size proportionally. Paragraph 40 of the applicant’s specifications filed 03/21/2024 additionally teaches that the isotropic variable magnification optical unit can reasonably consist of a plano-convex lens. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have used a plano-convex lens as the spherical convex lens positioned downstream of the concave and convex lens pair for the purpose of obvious engineering choice.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sercel (US 20090127240 A1) in view of SUENAGA (JP 2010039347 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LIMANOV (CN 111065759 A).
Regarding claim 6, Sercel as modified teaches the laser processing unit according to Claim 1.
Paragraph 28 of SUENAGA teaches that the set of lenses each comprise of a curved surface on one side and a plane perpendicular to the optical axis on the other side such that the curved surfaces face each other and are parallel to the printed circuit board. Figure 1 and Paragraph 36 of Sercel teach that the laser is reflected by beam reflectors 124, which change the direction of the beam before reaching imaging lenses 122. Paragraph 39 teaches that the laser source 110 is movable and is scanned across the mask 130. Thus, the positioning of the laser 110, and the direction and angle of reflection of reflectors 124 relative to the lenses are both variables which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to adjust due to obvious engineering choice and standard operation which would reasonably result in embodiments wherein “the generatrix of said one-direction variable magnification optical unit is along a scanning direction of the line-beam”. Furthermore LIMANOV (CN 111065759 A) teaches a laser apparatus and method for processing thin films wherein a positive lens 146 comprising a convex surface 150 and a negative lens 148 with a concave surface 152 with a gap 154 between are configured to rotate relative to another to compensate for beam rotation (LIMANOV Paragraph 52). Thus, it would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sercel with LIMANOV and adjusted the relative positioning of the laser, direction and angle of the reflector, and rotation of the lenses such that “the generatrix of said one-direction variable magnification optical unit is along a scanning direction of the line-beam”. This would have been done to compensate for beam rotation (LIMANOV Paragraph 52) as well as for purposes of obvious engineering choice.
Regarding claim 7, Sercel as modified teaches the laser processing unit according to Claim 1.
Paragraph 28 of SUENAGA teaches that the set of lenses each comprise of a curved surface on one side and a plane perpendicular to the optical axis on the other side such that the curved surfaces face each other and are parallel to the printed circuit board. Figure 1 and Paragraph 36 of Sercel teach that the laser is reflected by beam reflectors 124, which change the direction of the beam before reaching imaging lenses 122. Paragraph 39 teaches that the laser source 110 is movable and is scanned across the mask 130. Thus, the positioning of the laser 110, and the direction and angle of reflection of reflectors 124 relative to the lenses are both variables which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to adjust due to obvious engineering choice and standard operation which would reasonably result in embodiments wherein “the generatrix of said one-direction variable magnification optical unit is along a direction perpendicular to a scanning direction of the line-beam”. Furthermore LIMANOV (CN 111065759 A) teaches a laser apparatus and method for processing thin films wherein a positive lens 146 comprising a convex surface 150 and a negative lens 148 with a concave surface 152 with a gap 154 between are configured to rotate relative to another to compensate for beam rotation (LIMANOV Paragraph 52). Thus, it would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sercel with LIMANOV and adjusted the relative positioning of the laser, direction and angle of the reflector, and rotation of the lenses such that “the generatrix of said one-direction variable magnification optical unit is along a direction perpendicular to a scanning direction of the line-beam”. This would have been done to compensate for beam rotation (LIMANOV Paragraph 52) as well as for purposes of obvious engineering choice.
Regarding claim 8, Sercel as modified teaches the laser processing unit according to Claim 1.
Paragraph 28 of SUENAGA teaches that the set of lenses each comprise of a curved surface on one side and a plane perpendicular to the optical axis on the other side such that the curved surfaces face each other and are parallel to the printed circuit board. Figure 1 and Paragraph 36 of Sercel teach that the laser is reflected by beam reflectors 124, which change the direction of the beam before reaching imaging lenses 122. Furthermore, Paragraph 68 of SUENAGA further teaches that each of the cylindrical lenses 31 and 32 can be tilted such as to correct trapezoidal and rhombic distortions. Furthermore LIMANOV (CN 111065759 A) teaches a laser apparatus and method for processing thin films wherein a positive lens 146 comprising a convex surface 150 and a negative lens 148 with a concave surface 152 with a gap 154 between are configured to rotate relative to another to compensate for beam rotation (LIMANOV Paragraph 52). Thus, it would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sercel with LIMANOV and adjusted the relative positioning of the laser, direction and angle of the reflector, and rotation and tilt of the lenses such that “the generatrix of said one-direction variable magnification optical unit is inclined to a scanning direction of the line-beam.”. This would have been done to compensate for beam rotation (LIMANOV Paragraph 52), to correct for trapezoidal and rhombic distortions (SUENAGA Paragraph 68), and for purposes of obvious engineering choice.
Regarding claim 9, Sercel as modified teaches the laser processing unit according to Claim 1, comprising:
an actuator configured to tilt said one-direction variable magnification optical unit (Paragraph 68, each of the cylindrical lenses 31 and 32 can be tilted by controlling the drive amounts of multiple drive units 90 such as to correct trapezoidal and rhombic distortions)
Sercel as modified fails to explicitly teach:
an actuator configured to rotate said one-direction variable magnification optical unit around the optical axis
LIMANOV (CN 111065759 A) teaches a laser apparatus and method for processing thin films comprising:
an actuator configured to rotate said one-direction variable magnification optical unit around the optical axis (Paragraph 52, both a concave and convex lens facing one another are each configured to rotate relative to one another to compensate for axial torsional tolerance which means axial rotation or in other words rotation around the optical axis)5
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sercel with LIMANOV and have an actuator configured the optical unit around the optical axis. This would have been done to compensate for axial torsion (LIMANOV Paragraph 52).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 The Office further notes that having the apertures in the mask in the shape of a line, resulting in a line shaped laser beam on the object, is well known in the art as evidenced by Sercel (US 20070017908 A1). Furthermore, the MEPE teaches that mere changes in shape are not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. MPEP §2144.04.IV.B. In this case, having the shape of the mask, and thus the laser beam on the workpiece, be in the shape of a line is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant
2 The Office further notes that having the apertures in the mask in the shape of a line, resulting in a line shaped laser beam, is well known in the art as evidenced by Sercel (US 20070017908 A1).
3 The Office further notes that the positioning of a condensing lens downstream of a mask and a pair of cylindrical concave and cylindrical convex lens is known in the art as evidenced by RYU (US 20120111310 A1).
4 The Office further notes that the positioning of a condensing lens downstream of a mask and a pair of cylindrical concave and cylindrical convex lens is known in the art as evidenced by RYU (US 20120111310 A1).
5 The Office further notes that rotating a lens around a rotation axis coinciding with an optical axis such as to create a homogenous target intensity distribution is known in the art as evidenced by MUENZ (WO 2006066706 A2).
Prosecution Insights