DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 17591709, filed on 02/03/2022, which is a continuation of PCT International Application Serial Number PCT/US2020/046558, filed on August 14, 2020, which claims the benefit of, or priority to, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial Number 62/887,151, filed on August 15, 2019.
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 .
Drawings
Figures 4-10 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1410" and "1430" have both been used to designate Powell lens. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1410” has been used to designate both lens and staging system. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1430. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-30 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 1 recites “minimally acceptable damage”. However, it is not clear what range of damage is considered minimally acceptable. The original disclosure also does not give any description of the minimally acceptable range.
Claim 1 recites “a surface roughness capable of being polished back to a mirror-like finish.” It is not clear what amounts of surface roughness is capable of being polished back to a mirror-like finish. The original disclosure also does not give any description of the range of the required surface roughness.
Claims 7, 8, 9, recite “inspecting….. for compliance”. However, it is not clear which values are considered to be compliant values. The original disclosure also does not give any description of the range of the required compliant values.
Claim 30 recites “minimally acceptable damage”. However, it is not clear what range of damage is considered minimally acceptable. The original disclosure also does not give any description of the minimally acceptable range.
Claims 2-29 are rejected based on their dependency to independent claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 21, 23-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, US 20080280454 (hereafter Chen) and further in view of Fumitake, CN 108807217A (hereafter Fumitake).
Regarding claim 1,
“A method of completely removing structures or materials deposited, implanted, or formed in or on a surface of a semiconductor substrate without chemicals comprising:” (Chen teaches in abstract “A wafer recycling method using laser films stripping is proposed, in which the high energy density of laser is used to instantaneously vaporize and remove multilayer films of different materials on wafers.”)
“focusing coherent light on the surface of the substrate,”(Paragraph [15] teaches a single wavelength laser light is focused on the surface of a wafer. It is inherent that laser light is coherent light.)
“wherein the coherent light has a predetermined wavelength, power,….. and pulse rate or number of pulses per unit area” (Paragraph [15] teaches the laser has a wavelength of either 532 or 1064 nm. Table 1 teaches that the laser light has a predetermined power (W), and pulse rate (KHz).)
“that causes direct ionic vaporization of metals, dielectrics, and semiconducting materials deposited, implanted, or formed in or on the surface of the substrate” (The limitation “direct ionic vaporization” is interpreted as converting a solid to vapor as described in paragraph [49] of the original disclosure.
Chen teaches in paragraph [12] “The multilayer films on the surface of the wafer are instantaneously evaporated and removed through the high energy density of laser (Step 200). The film material can be nitride, oxide, polymer, or metal.” It is implied that the multilayer films are deposited, implanted , or formed on the surface of the substrate.)
“up to a predetermined penetration depth” (Paragraph [14] teaches that laser removal method is applied to films of predetermined thicknesses.)
“with minimally acceptable damage to the crystalline substrate;” (The limitation “minimally acceptable damage” is interpreted as little damage. Paragraph[7] teaches “the damage to silicon substrates is very little.” It is implied that very little damage corresponds to minimally acceptable damage.)
……“wherein the substrate is free from heavy metal surface contamination and” (Paragraph [12] in Chen teaches “The multilayer films on the surface of the wafer are instantaneously evaporated and removed through the high energy density of laser (Step 200). The film material can be nitride, oxide, polymer, or metal.” It is implied that the surface is free of metal wherein metal comprises heavy metal.)
“has a surface roughness capable of being polished back to a mirror-like finish.” (Paragraph [45] of the original disclosure describes the substrate “has a sufficient surface roughness that may be polished back to a mirror-like finish using well-known chemical mechanical polishing or lapping processes.” Based on this, the claim is interpreted as the substrate has a surface roughness capable of being polished.
Chen teaches in Fig. 2 that the surface of the wafer is polished after laser stripping. It is implied that after laser stripping the surface has sufficient roughness to be polished. )
Chen is silent about “wherein the coherent light has a predetermined ….. pulse width,”, “purging the surface of the substrate with an inert purge gas or liquid; and exhausting the surface of the substrate”.
Fumitake teaches “wherein the coherent light has a predetermined ….. pulse width,”. (Page 4, paragraph 1 of the attached machine translation of Fumitake teaches predetermined pulse width of 150ns to 400ns.)
“purging the surface of the substrate with an inert purge gas or liquid; and exhausting the surface of the substrate,” (Abstract in Fumitake teaches “The wafer surface treatment device and method use the pulse laser to form the laser beam; the laser beam is used for peeling off the surface structure from the wafer; the liquid is sprayed from the opening of the water tank, and washing away byproducts;”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to set a predetermined pulse width as taught in Fumitake in the method of Chen. It would have also been obvious to add the step of purging and exhausting the surface as taught in Fumitake in the method of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the wafer surface treatment process can form the wafer that can be repeatedly used, thus reducing the production cost” as taught in abstract in Fumitake.
Regarding claim 2,
“The method of claim 1, further comprising: disposing the substrate on a substrate holder; disposing the substrate holder on a substrate staging system; and” (Chen is silent about this limitation.
Fumitake teaches on page 5, paragraph 11 “The workbench 10 includes a susceptor 11 that carries the wafer 40.” Here susceptor is substrate holder, and workbench is a substrate staging system.)
“controlling an environment of the substrate to a predetermined pressure.”(Fumitake teaches in page 6, paragraph 9 “For the working environment, the wafer surface treatment apparatus further includes a ventilation device that circulates the gas, and the exhaust gas or the like generated during the treatment can be drained through the ventilation device.” It is inherent that draining an exhaust gas through a ventilation device comprises controlling the pressure of the substrate environment.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a holder, stage, and ventilation device as taught in Fumitake in the method of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The susceptor 11 is a rotatable and/or hoist able pedestal. The susceptor 11 can adjust the wafer 40 position, thereby facilitating the removal of the surface structure 41 on the wafer 40, adjusting the orientation of the wafer 40 by rotation, and adapting the wafer 40 and its surface structure 41 of different thicknesses by lifting” as taught in page 5, paragraph 11 in Fumitake.)
Regarding claim 3,
“The method of claim 1, further comprising: directing the coherent light through a moveable lens or mirror.” (Paragraph [15] in Chen teaches “An F-.THETA. lens is used to focus the laser light reflected by a scanning mirror.”)
Regarding claim 4,
“The method of claim 1, further comprising: moving the substrate to ensure one or more surfaces of the substrate are exposed to the coherent light.” (Fumitake teaches in page 5, paragraph 11 “The susceptor 11 is a rotatable and/or hoist able pedestal. The susceptor 11 can adjust the wafer 40 position, thereby facilitating the removal of the surface structure 41 on the wafer 40”.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a holder and stage as taught in Fumitake in the method of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The susceptor 11 can adjust the wafer 40 position, thereby facilitating the removal of the surface structure 41 on the wafer 40, adjusting the orientation of the wafer 40 by rotation, and adapting the wafer 40 and its surface structure 41 of different thicknesses by lifting” as taught in page 5, paragraph 11 in Fumitake.)
Regarding claim 5,
“The method of claim 1, further comprising: rotating the substrate to ensure one or more surfaces of the substrate are exposed to the coherent light.” (Fumitake teaches in page 5, paragraph 11 “adjusting the orientation of the wafer 40 by rotation,”.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a holder and stage as taught in Fumitake in the method of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The susceptor 11 can adjust the wafer 40 position, thereby facilitating the removal of the surface structure 41 on the wafer 40, adjusting the orientation of the wafer 40 by rotation, and adapting the wafer 40 and its surface structure 41 of different thicknesses by lifting” as taught in page 5, paragraph 11 in Fumitake.)
Regarding claim 6,
“The method of claim 1, further comprising: moving a coherent light source or a mirror to ensure one or more surfaces of the substrate are exposed to the coherent light.” (Paragraph [15] in Chen teaches “The scanning mirror allows the laser light to propagate along a predetermined path so that the high energy density of the laser light can function on the patterned films on the surface of a 50wafer to instantaneously evaporate and remove the patterned films on the surface of the silicon wafer.” Here scanning mirror corresponds to the moving mirror.)
Regarding claim 8,
“The method of claim 1, further comprising: inspecting a final thickness of the substrate for compliance.” (Chen is silent about this limitation.
Fumitake teaches in page 6, paragraph 10 “In order to obtain the processing result, the wafer surface processing apparatus further includes a thickness testing instrument 50 for testing the wafer 40 to determine the removal of the surface structure 41 of the wafer 40,”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of measuring thickness as taught in Fumitake in the method of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In order to obtain the processing result, the wafer surface processing apparatus further includes a thickness testing instrument 50 for testing the wafer 40 to determine the removal of the surface structure 41 of the wafer 40, and the thickness testing instrument. Can be used to test the thickness, either the thickness of the entire wafer, or the thickness of the surface structure of the wafer or its topography and the thickness variation, etc., and can reflect the surface finish of the wafer” as taught in page 6, paragraph 10 in Fumitake.)
Regarding claim 9,
“The method of claim 1, further comprising: inspecting the ionic vaporized surface of the substrate for compliance.” (Chen teaches in paragraph [12] “The multilayer films on the surface of the wafer are instantaneously evaporated and removed through the high energy density of laser (Step 200). The film material can be nitride, oxide, polymer, or metal.” Here the surface of the wafer corresponds to ionic vaporized surface in the instant claim.
Chen is silent about inspecting the surface for compliance.
Fumitake teaches in page 6, paragraph 10 “In order to obtain the processing result, the wafer surface processing apparatus further includes a thickness testing instrument 50 for testing the wafer 40 to determine the removal of the surface structure 41 of the wafer 40”. Here testing thickness corresponds to inspecting the wafer for compliance.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of measuring thickness as taught in Fumitake in the method of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In order to obtain the processing result, the wafer surface processing apparatus further includes a thickness testing instrument 50 for testing the wafer 40 to determine the removal of the surface structure 41 of the wafer 40, and the thickness testing instrument. Can be used to test the thickness, either the thickness of the entire wafer, or the thickness of the surface structure of the wafer or its topography and the thickness variation, etc., and can reflect the surface finish of the wafer” as taught in page 6, paragraph 10 in Fumitake.)
Regarding claim 11,
“The method of claim 1, wherein a focal point is adjusted by moving the substrate or moving a coherent light source.” (Page 10, paragraph 3 in Fumitake teaches “the wafer is disposed on a susceptor, and a position of the wafer is adjusted by rotation and/or elevation of the susceptor.” It is inherent that focal point is changed when the wafer height is changed.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of adjusting the focal point by moving the substrate as taught in Fumitake in the method of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The susceptor 11 can adjust the wafer 40 position, thereby facilitating the removal of the surface structure 41 on the wafer 40, adjusting the orientation of the wafer 40 by rotation, and adapting the wafer 40 and its surface structure 41 of different thicknesses by lifting” as taught in page 5, paragraph 11 in Fumitake.)
Regarding claim 12,
“The method of claim 1, wherein a focal point is directed at a predetermined location on or within the surface of the substrate.” (Paragraph [15] in Chen teaches “An F-.THETA. lens is used to focus the laser light reflected by a scanning mirror. By selecting different sizes of F-.THETA. lens, the working range, working distance, spot size, and single spot energy can be determined. The scanning mirror allows the laser light to propagate along a predetermined path so that the high energy density of the laser light can function on the patterned films on the surface of a wafer to instantaneously evaporate and remove the patterned films on the surface of the silicon wafer.” It is implied here that the focal point is focused along a predetermined path on the surface of the wafer.)
Regarding claim 21,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the coherent light is generated by a coherent light source comprising a beam of light.” (Paragraph [15] in Chen teaches a diode-pumped solid state laser as the light source. It is inherent that a solid state laser comprises a beam of light.)
Regarding claim 23,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined wavelength is in a range between 300 and 800 nanometers.” (Paragraph [15] in Chen teaches a wavelength of 532 nm. Here the claimed range of 300 and 800nm overlaps the range taught in Chen. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Regarding claim 24,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined wavelength is in a range between 700 nanometers and 1.4 microns.” (Paragraph [15] in Chen teaches a wavelength of 1064 nm. Here the claimed range of 700nm and 1.4 microns overlaps the range taught in Chen. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Regarding claim 25,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined wavelength is in a range between 900 nanometers and 5 microns.” (Paragraph [15] in Chen teaches a wavelength of 1064 nm. Here the claimed range of 900 nm to 5 microns overlaps the range taught in Chen. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Regarding claim 26,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined power is in a range between 1 and 1,000 watts.” (Chen teaches a power in a range between 3.5 to 4.6 watt in Table 1. Here the claimed range of 1 and 1000 watts overlaps the range taught in Chen. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Regarding claim 27,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined pulse width is in a range between 10-6 and 10-18 seconds.” (Page 4, paragraph 1 of the attached machine translation of Fumitake teaches predetermined pulse width of 150ns to 400ns. Here the claimed range of 1 attosecond to 1 micro second overlaps the range taught in Fumitake.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to set a predetermined pulse width as taught in Fumitake in the method of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the wafer surface treatment process can form the wafer that can be repeatedly used, thus reducing the production cost” as taught in abstract in Fumitake.
MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Regarding claim 28,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined pulse rate is in a range between 1 and 50,000 Hertz.” (Table 1 in Chen teaches pulse rate between 6 to 9 KHz wherein the claimed range of 1Hz to 50 KHz overlaps the range taught in Chen. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Regarding claim 29,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined penetration depth is in a range between 1 and 30 microns.” (Chen teaches in paragraph [14] a total film thickness of 3.3 micron for group C wafers, thus the penetration depth from top of the film stack is 3.3 micron. Here the claimed range of 1 to 30 microns overlaps the range taught in Chen. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Regarding claim 30,
“A system for completely removing structures or materials deposited, implanted, or formed in or on a surface of a semiconductor substrate without chemicals comprising:” (Chen teaches a laser system wherein “the high energy density of the laser light can function on the patterned films on the surface of a wafer to instantaneously evaporate and remove the patterned films on the surface of the silicon wafer” in paragraph [15].)
“a coherent light source that generates a coherent light” (Paragraph [15] teaches diode-pumped solid state laser. It is inherent that laser light is coherent light.)
“ having a predetermined wavelength, power, ….. and pulse rate or number of pulses per unit area” (Paragraph [15] teaches the laser has a wavelength of either 532 or 1064 nm. Table 1 teaches that the laser light has a predetermined power (W), and pulse rate (KHz).)
“ that causes direct ionic vaporization of metals, dielectrics, and semiconducting materials deposited, implanted, or formed in or on the surface of the substrate” (The limitation “direct ionic vaporization” is interpreted as converting a solid to vapor as described in paragraph [49] of the original disclosure.
Chen teaches in paragraph [12] “The multilayer films on the surface of the wafer are instantaneously evaporated and removed through the high energy density of laser (Step 200). The film material can be nitride, oxide, polymer, or metal.”)
“up to a predetermined penetration depth” (Paragraph [14] teaches that laser removal method is applied to films of predetermined thicknesses.)
“with minimally acceptable damage to the crystalline substrate;” (Paragraph[7] teaches “the damage to silicon substrates is very little.” It is implied that very little damage corresponds to minimally acceptable damage.)
“a lens or mirror that focuses the coherent light on the surface of the substrate;” (Paragraph [15] in Chen teaches f-theta lens.)
Chen is silent about “a coherent light having a predetermined ….. pulse width,”, “a gas purging system that purges the surface of the substrate; and an exhaust system that exhausts the substrate.”
Fumitake teaches “a coherent light having a predetermined ….. pulse width,” (Page 4, paragraph 1 of the attached machine translation of Fumitake teaches predetermined pulse width of 150ns to 400ns.)
“a gas purging system that purges the surface of the substrate; and an exhaust system that exhausts the substrate.” (Page 6, paragraph 9 in Fumitake teaches “For the working environment, the wafer surface treatment apparatus further includes a ventilation device that circulates the gas, and the exhaust gas or the like generated during the treatment can be drained through the ventilation device. In a specific embodiment, the ventilation device It can be implemented by a device such as a fan.” Here fan acts as both purging system and exhaust system.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to set a predetermined pulse width as taught in Fumitake in the laser system of Chen. It would have also been obvious to add the fan as taught in Fumitake in the system of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the wafer surface treatment process can form the wafer that can be repeatedly used, thus reducing the production cost” as taught in abstract in Fumitake.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Fumitake as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lecomte et al., US 20120199956 (hereafter Lecomte).
“The method of claim 1, further comprising: inspecting a surface roughness of one or more surfaces of the substrate for compliance.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Lecomte teaches inspecting the surface roughness of the recycled substrate before reusing it in paragraph [75].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of inspecting surface roughness as taught in Lecomte in the method of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In order to be able to use this substrate in the same way as the initial substrate, it was necessary to polish it until scratches smaller than 15 nm in depth and an RMS roughness lower than 5 Angstroms over a 20 micron.times.20 micron field (measured by AFM) were obtained” as taught in paragraph [75] in Lecomte.)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Fumitake as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arima, US 4720620 (hereafter Arima).
“The method of claim 1, wherein the substrate is disposed within a vacuum chamber.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Arima teaches laser processing on a wafer 5 in a chamber 6 in Fig. 2. Abstract teaches that chamber 6 is a vacuum chamber.
PNG
media_image1.png
467
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Arima
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the vacuum chamber in Arima to the method in Chen to dispose the wafer in vacuum chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “placing said semiconductor wafer and said semiconductor device in a low pressure gaseous atmosphere maintained at a low pressure in the range 1 to 10 mTorr to facilitate sublimation of said metal interconnections when the metal interconnections are irradiated; and irradiating a laser beam on desired positions of said metal interconnections, to sublimate and thereby cut said metal interconnections at said positions” as taught in column 3, lines 35-45 in Arima.)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Fumitake as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Engelsberg, WO 9423854 (hereafter Engelsberg).
“The method of claim 2, wherein the predetermined pressure is in a range between 1 and 2 atmospheres.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Engelsberg teaches a system for laser processing a wafer in Fig. 1. Page 9, paragraph 17 teaches “After sample 12 is placed in enclosure 15, enclosure 15 is repeatedly flushed and backfilled with gas 18 and is kept at a pressure slightly above ambient atmospheric pressure to prevent inflow of other gases.” Here a pressure slightly above ambient atmospheric pressure corresponds to a pressure close to 1 atmosphere. Here the claimed range of 1 to 2 atmospheres is close to the range taught in Engelsberg.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the pressure between 1 and 2 atmosphere as taught in Engelsberg in the method of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “prevent inflow of other gases” as taught in page 9, paragraph 17 in Engelsberg.
Additionally, MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%).”)
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Fumitake as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Arima, US 4720620 (hereafter Arima).
Regarding claim 14,
“The method of claim 2, wherein the predetermined pressure is in a range between 1 millitorr and 1 atmosphere.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Arima teaches a range of 1 to 10 mTorr in abstract. Here the claimed range of 1 mTorr to 1 atmosphere overlaps the range taught in Arima.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the vacuum chamber in Arima to the method in Chen to dispose the wafer in vacuum chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “placing said semiconductor wafer and said semiconductor device in a low pressure gaseous atmosphere maintained at a low pressure in the range 1 to 10 mTorr to facilitate sublimation of said metal interconnections when the metal interconnections are irradiated; and irradiating a laser beam on desired positions of said metal interconnections, to sublimate and thereby cut said metal interconnections at said positions” as taught in column 3, lines 35-45 in Arima.
MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Regarding claim 15,
“The method of claim 2, wherein the predetermined pressure is in a range between 10-7 torr and 1 millitorr.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Arima teaches a range of 1 to 10 mTorr in abstract. Here the claimed range of 10-7 torr to 1 mTorr overlaps the range taught in Arima.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the vacuum chamber in Arima to the method in Chen to dispose the wafer in vacuum chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “placing said semiconductor wafer and said semiconductor device in a low pressure gaseous atmosphere maintained at a low pressure in the range 1 to 10 mTorr to facilitate sublimation of said metal interconnections when the metal interconnections are irradiated; and irradiating a laser beam on desired positions of said metal interconnections, to sublimate and thereby cut said metal interconnections at said positions” as taught in column 3, lines 35-45 in Arima.
MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Claim(s) 16-19, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Fumitake as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Engelsberg, WO 9423854 (hereafter Engelsberg).
Regarding claim 16,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the coherent light is generated by a coherent light source comprising an ultraviolet laser.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Engelsberg teaches in page 11, paragraph 1 “other types of lasers, including visible, ultraviolet, infrared, x-ray or free electron lasers might be utilized as appropriate sources of radiation.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the ultraviolet laser source as taught in Engelsberg to the method in Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Depending upon the application, it is anticipated that light energy from such sources may range from deep ultraviolet to infrared, with corresponding wavelengths from 193-3000 nm, respectively” as taught in page 10, paragraph 7 in Engelsberg.)
Regarding claim 17,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the coherent light is generated by a coherent light source comprising a visible light laser.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Engelsberg teaches in page 11, paragraph 1 “other types of lasers, including visible, ultraviolet, infrared, x-ray or free electron lasers might be utilized as appropriate sources of radiation.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the visible light laser source as taught in Engelsberg to the method in Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Depending upon the application, it is anticipated that light energy from such sources may range from deep ultraviolet to infrared, with corresponding wavelengths from 193-3000 nm, respectively” as taught in page 10, paragraph 7 in Engelsberg.)
Regarding claim 18,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the coherent light is generated by a coherent light source comprising an infrared laser.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Engelsberg teaches in page 11, paragraph 1 “other types of lasers, including visible, ultraviolet, infrared, x-ray or free electron lasers might be utilized as appropriate sources of radiation.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the infrared laser source as taught in Engelsberg to the method in Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Depending upon the application, it is anticipated that light energy from such sources may range from deep ultraviolet to infrared, with corresponding wavelengths from 193-3000 nm, respectively” as taught in page 10, paragraph 7 in Engelsberg.)
Regarding claim 19,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the coherent light is generated by a coherent light source comprising an excimer laser.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Engelsberg teaches applying an excimer laser in page 12, paragraph 13.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the excimer laser source as taught in Engelsberg to the method in Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Depending upon the application, it is anticipated that light energy from such sources may range from deep ultraviolet to infrared, with corresponding wavelengths from 193-3000 nm, respectively” as taught in page 10, paragraph 7 in Engelsberg.)
Regarding claim 22,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined wavelength is in a range between 13.5 and 355 nanometers.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Engelsberg teaches a wavelength range from 193-3000nm in page 10, paragraph 7. Here the claimed range of 13.5 and 355 nm overlaps the range taught in Engelsberg.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the wavelength between 13.5 to 355 nm as taught in Engelsberg to the method in Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Depending upon the application, it is anticipated that light energy from such sources may range from deep ultraviolet to infrared, with corresponding wavelengths from 193-3000 nm, respectively” as taught in page 10, paragraph 7 in Engelsberg.
MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”))
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Fumitake as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rossall et al., “Ablation of Sub-micrometer holes using an Extreme-Ultraviolet laser”, Phys. Rev. Applied 3, 064013, June 19, 2015 (hereafter Rossall).
“The method of claim 1, wherein the coherent light is generated by a coherent light source comprising an extreme ultraviolet source.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Rossall teaches using an extreme ultraviolet laser in abstract.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the extreme ultraviolet laser source as taught in Rossall to the method in Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Reducing the lasing wavelength to the EUV to soft-x-ray region also allows for a tighter focus due to a reduction in the diffraction limit. The tighter focus is a potentially desirable property for a number of applications, for example, mesoscale machining , mass spectrometry ], and the coating of refractory material onto substrates” as taught in column 2, page 064013-1 in Rossall.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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 at (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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761