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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe (7396712).
The Tanabe reference teaches an apparats for annealing a layer on a substrate note entire reference. The apparatus consists of a plurality of pulsed laser sources, note column 8 lines 45-48 and figure 2. There is a beam homogenizer, col. 8 lines 48-55, figure 2, which creates beam sets with a long axis and a short axis. From the beam homogenizer, the laser beam sets pass through a beam projector, col 8, lines 55-60. The projector arranges the beam into line beams with long and short dimensions. The beams then hit the layer on the substrate. The layer is melted and the melt maintain for a set period by the second pulse, note col 11. The pulses are controlled by a controller and set to occur by the controller, note col 12. The sole difference between in the instant claim and the prior art is the apparatus being able to change the angle of the second beam set. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to have the second pulse set of beams set to hit the layer at a difference angle in the Tanabe in order to have a set time of melting in the layer as the reference does teach the angle of incident is changeable, note col 9, lines 1-30.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe (7396712) in view of Kahlert et al
The Tanabe reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the crystallizing of amorphous silicon. However, the Kahlert et al reference teaches an apparatus for laser annealing amorphous silicon to polycrystalline, note page 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Tanabe apparatus by the teachings of the Kahlert et al reference to crystallize silicon in order to increase use of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 3 to 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe (7396712) in view of Kahlert et al
The Tanabe and Kahlert et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the setup and operation of the two beams. The apparatus of the Tanabe reference is capable of changing the operation and setup of the beams. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, to determine through routine experimentation in the combined references the beam setup in order to obtain the proper melt section and is a process limitation.
Claim(s) 11 to 15 and 18 to 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe (7396712) in view of Kahlert et al
The Tanabe and Kahlert et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the two beam angles. The apparatus of the Tanabe reference is capable of changing the operation and setup of the beams. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, to determine through routine experimentation in the combined references the beam angle in order to hit the target with controlled amounts of energy.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe (7396712) in view of Kahlert et al
The Tanabe and Kahlert et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the second beam type. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, to determine through routine experimentation in the combined references the second beam being unpolarized in order to increase the reliability of the beam for strength and power.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe (7396712) in view of Kahlert et al
The Tanabe and Kahlert et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the wavelength and pulse of the beams. Both references teach a range of wavelength and pulses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation in the combined references the wavelength and pulse of the beams in order to hit the target with the right amount of power for crystallization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights