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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Lee does not disclose that the steel strip with the defective groove is processed again by using the corrected laser focus position.
The Office agrees. Lee does not disclose going back to the defective groove and correcting it with the new processing condition, rather Lee discloses that the focal position is changed so that that defective formation may be corrected, i.e. the later portions of the strip is corrected (par. 232).
The new amendments to claim 59 does not claim “reprocessing the defective portion” rather claims to “process the object…using the changed set conditions.” Lee discloses that the object (steel strip) is processed with the new processing condition (new focal position) after having detected that the difference is greater than a predetermined threshold.
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) 59, 61-63, 65-71, and 88-90 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suss (US 20210129271 A1) in view of Kurita (JP 2008032524 A) and Lee (US 20200087744 A1).
Claim 59. Suss discloses A processing system (laser processing machine 1, Fig. 1) comprising: a housing (machine has a housing, Fig. 1) that houses an object (workpiece, par. 38);
a processing apparatus (laser processing tool 4) that is disposed in the housing and that performs a removal processing on the object by irradiating the object with processing light (laser removes material from the workpiece);
a measurement apparatus (measuring station II has a sensor 3, par. 40) that is disposed in the housing and that measures a surface of the object (sensor can measure the geometry or elevation profile of the workpiece, par. 40); and
Suss does not disclose a control apparatus that sets a condition of the processing light based on measurements made by the measurement apparatus,
wherein the control apparatus () that sets a processing condition () by using the processed amount measured by the measurement apparatus (), wherein the control apparatus controls the processing apparatus and the measurement apparatus to:
obtain a first measured result by measuring a processing position of the object by using the measurement apparatus before the processing apparatus performs the removal processing;
perform the removal processing on the processing position of the object by the processing apparatus using a set condition of the processing light;
obtain a second measured result by measuring a part of the objects on which the removal processing has been performed, by using the measurement apparatus after the processing apparatus performs the removal processing;
determine a removal processed amount of the object based on the first measured result and the second measured result.
Kurita discloses a laser process control system generally for micromachining workpieces by removing material (par. 22) wherein
a control apparatus (control unit 11) that sets a condition of the processing light based on measurements made by the measurement apparatus (control unit drives the moving mechanism to move the workpiece to the position of the focus F based on the measured reflected light, par. 32),
wherein the control apparatus controls the processing apparatus and the measurement apparatus to:
obtain a first measured result (distance between the focal point F and the machining portion of the workpiece is calculated, par. 45; where it is understood that the calculation of the distance involves analyzing the light being reflected from the surface of the machining portion, par. 29) by measuring a processing position of the object by using the measurement apparatus before the processing apparatus performs the removal processing (prior to the machining removal process, step S2-S7 is performed to identify and store the z-position of the workpiece that coincides with the focal point F, par. 53)
perform the removal processing on the processing position of the object by the processing apparatus using a set condition of the processing light (the removal process is performed on the processing portion, par. 53);
obtain a second measured result by measuring a part of the objects on which the removal processing has been performed, by using the measurement apparatus after the processing apparatus performs the removal processing (step S2-S7 is performed again to identify the new z-position of the processed portion, par. 52-53);
determine a removal processed amount of the object based on the first measured result and the second measured result (processing amount of the removal process is calculated from the difference between the identified z-direction positions, par. 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suss to incorporate the teachings of Kurita and calculate the removed amount. Doing so would have the benefit of accurately aligning the focus of the laser on the object being processed (par. 5, Kurita).
Suss in view of Kurita does not disclose when a difference between the removal processed amount that has been determined and a predetermined amount is greater than a predetermined threshold, change the set condition of the processing light,
change the set condition of the processing light; and
process the object by the processing apparatus using the changed set condition
Lee discloses laser irradiating a workpiece to form grooves wherein the correcting step includes a step of comparing when a difference between the removal processed amount that has been determined and a predetermined amount is greater than a predetermined threshold (the detected depth of the groove is compared to the reference value and if the deviation is more than 2 um, then an adjusting step is performed, par. 234),
change the set condition of the processing light (the focal position is adjusted if a deviation occurs between the detected depth and reference value, par. 220; where the broadest reasonable interpretation of “set condition of the processing light” includes altering the focal position);
process the object by the processing apparatus using the changed set condition (the focal position is changed so that that defective formation may be corrected, i.e. the later portions of the strip is corrected, par. 232)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suss to incorporate the teachings of Kurita and utilize Lee’s feedback loop of adjusting the focal position to correct for deviations. Doing so would have the benefit of accurately forming the groove on the workpiece’s surface and correcting for deviations (par. 222, Lee).
Claim 61. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 59, wherein the processing system further comprises a position change apparatus that makes a positional relationship among the object (transport device, claim 2), the processing apparatus and the measurement apparatus be a first positional relationship in which the object is allowed to be processed by the processing apparatus or a second positional relationship in which the object is allowed to be measured by the measurement apparatus (transport device can move the workpiece to the various stations, par. 43).
Claim 62. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 61, wherein the control apparatus controls the position change apparatus and the processing apparatus to make the processing apparatus and the object have the first positional relationship by using the position change apparatus and to process the object under the set condition by using the processing apparatus (travel unit moves the wafer to the laser station to process the wafer, Fig. 4a).
Claim 63. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 61, wherein the position change apparatus changes a position of the object relative to the processing apparatus and the measurement apparatus (wafer moves on the travel rails 9a, 9b relative to the processing and measurement apparatus, Fig. 4e, par. 45).
Claim 65. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 59, wherein a part of the processing apparatus and a part of the measurement apparatus are shared (laser station I and measurement station III are part of the same overall apparatus 1, Fig. 1).
Claim 66. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 59, wherein the processing system further comprising an object placing apparatus on which the object is placed (workpiece is held by the transport device, par. 43),
the object remains being placed on the object placing apparatus between the processing of the object by the processing apparatus and the measurement of the object by the measurement apparatus (workpiece is mounted on the workpiece holder and transferred from the measuring station to the processing station, par. 43).
Claim 67. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 66, wherein the measurement of the object by the measurement apparatus includes a measurement of the object that is not yet processed by the processing apparatus (sensor measures the object prior to being processed, par. 40),
the object remains being placed on the object placing apparatus in a period from the measurement of the non-processed object by the measurement apparatus to the processing by the processing apparatus (workpiece is mounted on the workpiece holder and retained during measuring and processing, par. 43).
Claim 68. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 66, wherein the object placing apparatus has a movable stage (transport unit with workpiece holder, Fig. 1) on which the object is placed and that is movable on a surface plate (workpiece holder moves above a surface, Fig. 2).
Claim 69. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 66, wherein the object placing apparatus has a hold part (workpiece holder 6.1) that holds the object, wherein the object placing apparatus is movable between a processing performed position at which the processing by the processing apparatus is performed and a measurement performed position at which the measurement by the measurement apparatus is performed while holding the object (workpiece is mounted on the workpiece holder and retained during measuring and processing, par. 43).
Claim 70. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 69, wherein a holding aspect of the hold part that holds the object (workpiece is mounted on the workpiece holder, par. 43) in at least a part of a processing period when the processing apparatus processes the object is same as a holding aspect of the hold part that holds the object in at least a part of a measurement period when the measurement apparatus performs the measurement operation (workpiece is mounted on the workpiece holder and retained during measuring and processing, par. 43).
Claim 71. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 59, wherein the processing apparatus has an irradiation optical system that irradiates the object with an energy beam (laser processing tool 2).
Claim 88. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 63, wherein the position change apparatus comprises an object placing apparatus that is disposed in the housing and that moves the object placed thereon along two-dimensional directions (workpiece is held by the transport device, par. 43, and moves between stations, Fig. 1).
Claim 89. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 88, wherein the processing apparatus performs the removal processing on the object by irradiating the object placed on the object placing apparatus with the processing light (workpiece is mounted on the workpiece holder and retained during measuring and processing, par. 43).
Claim 90. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 89, wherein the measurement apparatus measures the surface of the object placed on the object placing apparatus (measuring station has a sensor which includes a camera, par. 40).
Claim(s) 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suss in view of Kurita and Lee as applied to claim 61 above, and further in view of Paganelli (US 20110120981 A1).
Claim 64. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee does not disclose the processing system according to claim 61, wherein the position change apparatus changes positions of the processing apparatus and the measurement apparatus relative to the object ().
Paganelli discloses a laser machining device wherein the laser head (8, Fig. 2) and sensor (31, Fig. 2) can change positions relative to the processed object on the table 14 (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suss in view of Kurita and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Paganelli and allow the laser head and sensor move relative to the workpiece. Doing so would have the benefit of increasing the system’s degree of freedom allowing the laser to irradiating all kinds of 3D surfaces (par. 1-2, Paganelli).
Claim(s) 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suss in view of Kurita and Lee as applied to claim 71 above, and further in view of Goruganthu (US 6277659 B1).
Claim 72. Suss in view of Kurita and Lee does not disclose the processing system according to claim 71, wherein the processing condition is a characteristic of the energy beam
Goruganthu discloses a substrate removal process wherein a processing condition (removal rate of the laser milling device 660, Col 6, lines 7-11, Fig. 6) is alter in response to a detected thickness (col 6, lines 25-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suss in view of Kurita and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Goruganthu. Doing so would have the benefit of altering the amount of material removed by the laser so that the measured amount reaches the desired amount (col 6, lines 41-17, Goruganthu).
Claim(s) 93-95 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suss (US 20210129271 A1) in view of Small (US 2017/0205623 A1), Kurita (JP 2008032524 A), and Lee (US 20200087744 A1).
Claim 93. Suss discloses a processing system (laser processing machine 1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (machine has a housing, Fig. 1) that houses an object (workpiece, par. 38);
a processing apparatus (laser processing tool 4) that is disposed in the housing and that processes the object, the processing apparatus includes an irradiation optical system that irradiates the object with an energy beam to process the object (laser removes material from the workpiece, abstract);
a measurement apparatus (measuring station II has a sensor 3, par. 40) that is disposed in the housing and that measures a processed amount of the object processed by the processing apparatus (sensor can measure the geometry or elevation profile of the workpiece, par. 40); and
a control apparatus that sets a processing condition including a characteristic of the energy beam by using the processed amount (optical system which focuses the laser beam or can cause it to wobble, par. 29 and 59)
Suss does not explicitly disclose that the characteristic of the energy beam can be adjusted.
Small discloses a laser processing machine wherein the optical scanning system (304, Fig. 3) has a z-lens actuator which can change the focal plane of the laser beam (par. 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suss to incorporate the teachings of Small and have an optical system which alter the focal position of the laser beam. Doing so would have the benefit adjusting the focal position of the laser beam (par. 35, Small) and such methods are well known in the art as demonstrated by Small.
Suss in view of Small does not disclose obtain a first measured result by measuring at a processing position of the object by using the measurement apparatus before the processing;
process the object by the processing apparatus;
obtain a second measured result by measuring at a processed part of the object by using the measurement apparatus after the processing; and
set the processing condition including the characteristic of the energy beam based on the second measured result.
Kurita discloses a laser process control system generally for micromachining workpieces by removing material (par. 22) wherein
obtain a first measured result (distance between the focal point F and the machining portion of the workpiece is calculated, par. 45; where it is understood that the calculation of the distance involves analyzing the light being reflected from the surface of the machining portion, par. 29) by measuring at a processing position of the object by using the measurement apparatus before the processing (prior to the machining removal process, step S2-S7 is performed to identify and store the z-position of the workpiece that coincides with the focal point F, par. 53);
process the object by the processing apparatus (the removal process is performed on the processing portion, par. 53);
obtain a second measured result by measuring at a processed part of the object by using the measurement apparatus after the processing (step S2-S7 is performed again to identify the new z-position of the processed portion, par. 52-53); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suss in view of Small to incorporate the teachings of Kurita and calculate the removed amount. Doing so would have the benefit of accurately aligning the focus of the laser on the object being processed (par. 5, Kurita).
Suss in view of Small and Kurita does not disclose set the processing condition including the characteristic of the energy beam based on the second measured result.
Lee discloses laser irradiating a workpiece to form grooves wherein the correcting step includes a step of comparing where the detected depth of the groove is compared to the reference value and if the deviation is more than 2 um, then an adjusting step is performed, par. 234),
setting the processing condition (based on the detected depth, the focal position is changed so that that defective formation may be corrected, i.e. the later portions of the strip is corrected, par. 232).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suss to incorporate the teachings of Kurita and utilize Lee’s feedback loop of adjusting the focal position to correct for deviations. Doing so would have the benefit of accurately forming the groove on the workpiece’s surface and correcting for deviations (par. 222, Lee). Although Lee or Kurita does not disclose changing the focal position of the laser beam through changing a characteristic of the laser beam, Small demonstrates that it is well known in the art to alter the focal plane of the laser beam through the optical system.
Claim 94. Suss in view of Small, Kurita, and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 93, wherein the processing system further comprises an object placing apparatus on which the object is placed (workpiece is held by the transport device, par. 43), and
the object remains placed on the object placing apparatus between the processing of the object by the processing apparatus and the measurement of the object by the measurement apparatus (workpiece is mounted on the workpiece holder and transferred from the measuring station to the processing station, par. 43).
Claim 95. Suss in view of Small, Kurita, and Lee discloses the processing system according to claim 94, wherein the control apparatus controls the measurement apparatus to perform the measurement of the object in a condition that the object is not yet processed by the processing apparatus (sensor measures the object prior to being processed, par. 40) and
the object remains placed on the object placing apparatus in a period from the measurement of the non-processed object by the measurement apparatus to the processing of the object by the processing apparatus (workpiece is mounted on the workpiece holder and retained during measuring and processing, par. 43).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 91 and 92 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not disclose this measurement method wherein the position of the object is moved back and forth from the measurement location to the processing location and back to the measurement location.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761