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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the present application has a wide range of related domestic and foreign filings in other countries. Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) Office Actions and prior art related to the claimed invention which have been cited during prosecution of related filings, (b) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that which has been authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under which or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claim 5 contact position and the claim 7 scanning over a single mask pattern repeatedly. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 3 of claim 1 step (b), “and” should be added prior to “said”.
The term “Claim” at line 1 of each of claims 2-11 should be changed to “claim”.
At line 3 of claim 6, “on said workpiece” should be added after “area”.
At line 1 of claim 9, “said” should be added prior to “determining”.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular:
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed:
It is unclear whether the claim 1 step (b) line 1 recitation of scanning “a mask” in fact refers back to the same mask provided in step (a), or may be construed as distinct therefrom;
It is unclear in claim 1 step (c) if or how the recited “pattern beam” relates back to the previously recited laser beam;
It is unclear in claim 1 step (d) line 1 whether the term “processing” in “processing start-position” refers back to the step (c) forming of a processed pattern in a processing area, or may be construed as distinct therefrom;
It is unclear whether the claim 1 step (d) line 4 “processed sections” refer to multiple of the step (c) line 3 “processed patterns” and if so then exactly how, or if not then exactly what such processed sections entail;
It is unclear whether the claim 1 step (d) line 5-6 “at least one mask pattern” refers to at least one of the step (b) line 3 “mask patterns”, or may be construed as distinct therefrom;
It is unclear whether the claim 2-3 scanning refer(s) back to that of claim 1 step (b) or may be construed as distinct therefrom;
It is unclear whether the claim 4-5 line 2 “processing” refers back to the claim 1 step (d) forming of a processed pattern or may be construed as distinct therefrom;
It is unclear if or how the claim 5 “processing sections”, claim 6 “forming sections”, and claim 7 “processing sections” relate to the claim 1 step (d) processing sections;
It is unclear if or how the claim 6 “processed pattern”, claim 6 “processed patterns”, claim 7 “processed pattern”, and claim 11 “processed patterns” relate to the claim 1 step (c) processed pattern;
It is unclear if or how the claim 7 “single mask pattern” and the claim 8-9 “mask pattern” relate back to the “mask patterns” of claim 1;
It is unclear exactly what the claim 8 “scanning order” is of; and
It is unclear if or how the claim 10-11 “processing areas” relate to the processing area of claim 1 step (c).
The claim 1 step (b) line 3-5 recitation of “said plurality of mask patterns being aligned in scanning bands corresponding to the width of the line-shaped laser beam” is confusing. The recited “scanning bands” lack antecedent basis. Further, if such “bands” refer to the scanned beam, it is unclear how to interpret the claimed mask patterns being aligned “in” said bands; this language is confusing.
It is unclear in claim 1 step (d) lines 3-4 exactly how to construe the recited adjusting “in accordance to processing sections in the processing area”, in particular exactly how the adjusting is performed “in accordance” as such, and exactly what such “accordance” entails.
It is unclear exactly what the claim 3 “scanning area” is of.
It is unclear with respect to what the claim 3 next scanning start-position is scanned “next”. If this intends to refer to the next start-position being next with respect to the first recited start-position, then an additional issue would exist in that the recited position is implied as both the same (i.e. one position which is moved) and different (i.e. a next position with respect to a previous position).
The claim 4 recitation of the claim 1 adjusting (of processing start-position “on said workpiece”) by moving a processing start-position of the beam “on said mask” is confusing, in particular since these start-positions are different from one another.
It is further unclear in claim 4 how a processing start-position on said mask could be moved “by moving said processing stage” onto which a workpiece (i.e. not said mask) is mounted.
It is unclear with respect to what the claim 9 directions are provided.
The claim 10 line 1 “determining” lacks antecedent basis.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-ftorms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of each of copending Application Nos. 19/066,774 and 19/066,811, taken individually, and further in view of Funayama et al. (JP 2024-002050, machine translation provided herewith cited herein).
Claims of each of copending Application Nos. 19/066,774 and 19/066,811 individually or collectively recite steps corresponding to each of instant claim 1 steps (a)-(d) with exception of a provision of mask patterns in the claimed bands, and for the copending ’811 application with exception also of the claimed adjusting. See copending claim 1 of each of the copending applications for a corresponding method, in addition to copending claim 10 of the ’774 application for movement believed to correspond to the instantly claimed adjusting. As to the claimed bands, Funayama teaches a similar fig. 1-5 method in which a similar mask is utilized whereby such bands MR1-MR4 corresponding to beam width are provided (see the corresponding description of the above figures as relevant, in addition to depicted beam width LW), and whereby the claimed adjusting is performed for patterning (see at least the abstract and corresponding description of figs. 1-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Funayama into the copending claims as providing such bands as being art-recognized equivalents or otherwise substitutable for the mask pattern(s) of the copending claims, and as providing such adjusting to at least the ’811 application so as to form individual patterned regions on the workpiece being treated.
The copending claims of the ’774 application are also believed to recite the instant claim 2 movement (copending claim 10), but these and the copending ’811 claims are otherwise not believed to disclose remaining features instant claims 3-11. However, these features, in addition to those of instant claim 2, are likewise disclosed by Funayama in at least the above citations (see mask M with mask patterns P1-P4, scanning as set forth in the abstract, fig. 1, etc., and see mask stage 40, the fig. 1-2 patterning, pattern regions WA, the fig. 3 light-shielding film, etc.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Funayama into the copending claims as providing an art-recognized suitable or alternative patterning method in addition to the corresponding structural components therefor.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Rejection 1
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funayama et al. (JP 2024-002050, machine translation provided herewith cited herein).
As to claim 1, Funayama teaches a fig. 1-5 method comprising: preparing mask M with mask patterns P1-P4: scanning with a line-shaped laser beam by a scanning mechanism (abstract, fig. 1, etc.), the mask mounted on a mask stage 40 with the mask patterns aligned in scanning bands MR1-MR4 corresponding to beam width (see the corresponding description of the above figures, in addition to depicted beam width LW); projecting a pattern beam in the manner claimed (see at least figs. 1-2); and adjusting start position by controlling movement in the manner claimed (abstract, etc.), with processing sections being defined in the manner claimed (see at least the corresponding description of the above figures).
As best understood in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness issues set forth above, Funayama is further believed to teach the claim 2-4 moving, the claim 5 positioning and moving, the claim 6 shifting by switching a position of mirror(s) 26-27, the claim 7 repeating (note a larger number of processed pattern regions WA than mask patterns P1-P4), the claim 8-9 determining of scanning interval and setting of pattern and scanning order (see the corresponding description of at least the above figures as relevant), the claim 10 use of a light-shielding member (see the corresponding description of at least fig. 3 regarding a light-shielding film, and note also an inherent light-shielding nature of mask portions not transmitting the laser beam), and the claim 11 forming and arrangement (fig. 1).
Rejection 2
It is noted that while not outlined herein for the sake of brevity, a rejection is also applicable over US 8,378,258, which is believed to anticipate at least claim 1 due to all claimed steps being disclosed as set forth in at least the fig. 1 embodiment thereof. This reference should be addressed in reply to this Office action via amendment and/or remarks.
Interview Request
Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner upon review of the instant Office action so as to discuss the claimed invention, the above prior art rejection and other applicable prior art, and how it is believed that the crux of the claimed and disclosed invention distinguishes over the prior art as a whole, particularly if it is believed that such a discussion will help to advance prosecution.
Related Prior Art
See at least the abstract and figures of the additional prior art hereby made of record, which additional prior art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be relied upon in subsequent rejections against claimed subject matter. Note, for example:
CN 116060797 (fig. 1), CN 116060798 (fig. 1), CN 116060799 (fig. 1), JP 2020-192550 (fig. 1), JP 2020-157341 (fig. 1) are considered particularly relevant for their same or similar disclosure of an apparatus and corresponding method corresponding to that of Fig. 1 of the instant specification.
US 2008/0145567 (fig. 3) is additionally considered relevant due to the fig. 3 linear beam projected through mask 11 onto distinct processing regions of a workpiece 1.
The manner in which such prior art might apply to the claimed and/or disclosed invention should be considered prior to a formal response being filed to this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights