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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1-2, 4-7, 23-24, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 2016/0250714) in view of Sun et al (US 2009/0236323).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method of forming a feature within a workpiece comprising a first structure and a second structure, wherein the feature includes an opening formed in the first structure, the method comprising:
scanning a beam of laser energy directed onto the workpiece such that the beam of laser energy is incident upon the first structure to deliver the laser energy, in sequence, to a plurality of spatially different spot locations of a scan pattern (Abstract ---"The laser beam pulses of individually selected energies can be directed to individually selected transverse spot locations (5310) one or more times during a primary laser pass to permit three-dimensional patterning.”), wherein the scanning comprises:
a) delivering the laser energy to at least two spot locations of the plurality of spatially different spot locations to distribute the laser energy within a region of the workpiece where the feature is to be formed (Claim 1 ---“…and delivering, during a primary laser pass along the beam trajectory, a laser beam pulse to the workpiece at each of a plurality of selective spot locations within the deflection range of the second positioning system…”);
and b) after a), delivering the laser energy to at least two spot locations of the plurality of spatially different spot locations to form the opening by indirectly ablating the first structure within the region ([0011] lines 2-4 ---"Laser pulses with high peak power may be used to ablate the dielectric material while minimizing thermal side effects such as melting, cracking, and substrate damage.”).
However, Zhang does not teach c) generating, at a laser source, a first laser pulse; and d) temporally dividing the first laser pulse into a plurality of second laser pulses.
Nonetheless, Sun teaches c) generating, at a laser source, a first laser pulse (Fig. 7b #228 pulse shape);
and d) temporally dividing the first laser pulse (Fig. 7b #228 pulse shape) into a plurality of second laser pulses (Fig. 7c #230, 232, and 234 pulses; [0036] lines 16-19 ---" As shown here, the first beam deflection device 220 has caused portions of the long duration input pulse 228 to be deflected so as to form the pulses 230, 232 and 234.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhang by incorporating the first laser pulse as taught by Sun for the benefit of effecting depthwise removal of target material.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Zhang teaches wherein the first structure is an electrically conductive structure and the second structure is a dielectric structure ([0297] lines 17-22 ---"For example, a laser process (e.g., scribing between integrated circuits formed on or in a semiconductor wafer) may include a first process step that cuts through an overlying metal (e.g., copper) layer, followed by a second process step that uses a reduced fluence to process an underlying dielectric layer.”).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Zhang teaches wherein the laser energy has a wavelength in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum ([0282] lines 1-4 ---" In some embodiments, the laser source 1046 employs a solid-state diode-pumped laser, which can be configured to emit wavelengths from about 266 nm (UV) to about 1320 nm (IR) at pulse repetition rates up to 5 MHz.”).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Zhang teaches wherein the laser energy has a wavelength in the ultraviolet range of the electromagnetic spectrum ([0282] lines 1-4 ---" In some embodiments, the laser source 1046 employs a solid-state diode-pumped laser, which can be configured to emit wavelengths from about 266 nm (UV) to about 1320 nm (IR) at pulse repetition rates up to 5 MHz.”).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Zhang teaches wherein scanning the beam of laser energy to deliver the laser energy includes delivering at least one laser pulse to each of the plurality of spot locations (Abstract ---"The laser beam pulses of individually selected energies can be directed to individually selected transverse spot locations (5310) one or more times during a primary laser pass to permit three-dimensional patterning.”).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 6), and Zhang teaches wherein scanning the beam of laser energy to deliver the laser energy includes delivering only one laser pulse to at least one of the plurality of spot locations (Abstract ---"The laser beam pulses of individually selected energies can be directed to individually selected transverse spot locations (5310) one or more times during a primary laser pass to permit three-dimensional patterning.”).
Regarding claim 23, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Zhang teaches wherein delivering the laser energy, in sequence, to the plurality of spatially different spot locations of the scan pattern includes delivering the laser energy to a different spot location at a rate greater than or equal to 20 kHz ([0282] lines 1-4 ---" In some embodiments, the laser source 1046 employs a solid-state diode-pumped laser, which can be configured to emit wavelengths from about 266 nm (UV) to about 1320 nm (IR) at pulse repetition rates up to 5 MHz.”).
Regarding claim 24, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 23), and Zhang teaches wherein the rate is greater than or equal to 1 MHz ([0282] lines 1-4 ---" In some embodiments, the laser source 1046 employs a solid-state diode-pumped laser, which can be configured to emit wavelengths from about 266 nm (UV) to about 1320 nm (IR) at pulse repetition rates up to 5 MHz.”).
Regarding claim 28, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Zhang teaches wherein the first structure is metallic ([0297] lines 17-22 ---"For example, a laser process (e.g., scribing between integrated circuits formed on or in a semiconductor wafer) may include a first process step that cuts through an overlying metal (e.g., copper) layer, followed by a second process step that uses a reduced fluence to process an underlying dielectric layer.”),
and a portion of the first structure is melted when the first structure is indirectly ablated to form the opening (See Examiner’s note below).
Examiner’s note: The limitation “a portion of the first structure is melted when the first structure is indirectly ablated to form the opening” appears to be a result of the ablation process and not an active step. Melting of the first structure is typical during an ablation process. Evidence of this occurrence can be found in Dunsky et al (US 2001/0045419). Dunsky teaches in para. [0010] ---" Even within the parameters established by Owen et al., skilled persons would need to further tailor the repetition rate changes and other process parameters to suit particular workpieces to produce vias meeting all the criteria for quality, including the via wall taper, the degree of melting of the copper layer at the bottom of the via, and the height of the "rim" around the periphery of the via caused by the splash of molten copper during drilling.”
Regarding claim 29, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Zhang teaches wherein a portion of the first structure is unmelted when the first structure is indirectly ablated to form the opening, wherein the unmelted portion is surrounded by the melted portion (See Examiner’s note below).
Examiner’s note: The limitation “a portion of the first structure is unmelted when the first structure is indirectly ablated to form the opening, wherein the unmelted portion is surrounded by the melted portion” appears to be a result of the ablation process and not an active step. Melting of the first structure is typical during an ablation process. Evidence of this occurrence can be found in Dunsky et al (US 2001/0045419). Dunsky teaches in para. [0010] ---" Even within the parameters established by Owen et al., skilled persons would need to further tailor the repetition rate changes and other process parameters to suit particular workpieces to produce vias meeting all the criteria for quality, including the via wall taper, the degree of melting of the copper layer at the bottom of the via, and the height of the "rim" around the periphery of the via caused by the splash of molten copper during drilling.”
Regarding claim 30, Zhang discloses an apparatus for forming a feature within a workpiece comprising a first structure and a second structure, wherein the feature includes an opening formed in the first structure, the apparatus comprising:
a laser source (Fig. 10A #1046 laser source) operative to generate a beam of laser energy, wherein the beam of laser energy is propagatable along a beam path to be incident upon the first structure of the workpiece;
a positioner (Fig. 10A #1044 first positioning system) operative to deflect the beam path;
and a controller (Fig. 10 #1010 system control computer) communicatively coupled to the positioner, wherein the controller (Fig. 10 #1010 system control computer) is configured to control an operation of the positioner to effect a scanning process in which the beam path is deflected along a scan pattern to deliver the laser energy, in sequence, to a plurality of spatially different spot locations of a scan pattern, wherein during the scanning process: a) the laser energy is deliverable to at least two spot locations of the plurality of spatially different spot locations to distribute the laser energy within a region of the workpiece where the feature is to be formed (Claim 1 ---“…and delivering, during a primary laser pass along the beam trajectory, a laser beam pulse to the workpiece at each of a plurality of selective spot locations within the deflection range of the second positioning system…”);
and b) after a), the laser energy is deliverable to at least two spot locations of the plurality of spatially different spot locations to form the opening by indirectly ablating the first structure within the region ([0011] lines 2-4 ---"Laser pulses with high peak power may be used to ablate the dielectric material while minimizing thermal side effects such as melting, cracking, and substrate damage.”).
However, Zhang does not teach c) a first laser pulse of the laser energy is generated at a laser source; and d) the first laser pulse is temporally divided into a plurality of second laser pulses.
Nonetheless, Sun teaches c) a first laser pulse (Fig. 7b #228 pulse shape) of the laser energy is generated at a laser source;
and d) the first laser pulse (Fig. 7b #228 pulse shape) is temporally divided into a plurality of second laser pulses (Fig. 7c #230, 232, and 234 pulses; [0036] lines 16-19 ---" As shown here, the first beam deflection device 220 has caused portions of the long duration input pulse 228 to be deflected so as to form the pulses 230, 232 and 234.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhang by incorporating the first laser pulse as taught by Sun for the benefit of effecting depthwise removal of target material.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 2016/0250714) in view of Sun et al (US 2009/0236323) as applied to claim 2, further in view of Owen et al (US 5,593,606).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), but does not teach wherein the first structure has a thickness in a range from 1 µm to 20 µm.
Nonetheless, Owen teaches wherein the first structure has a thickness in a range from 1 µm to 20 µm (Col. 1 lines 33-39 ---" The standard metal component layer(s) may contain aluminum, copper, gold, molybdenum, nickel, palladium, platinum, silver, titanium, or tungsten, or combinations thereof. These layers typically have a depth or thickness of about 9-36 .mu.m (where 7.8.times.10.sup.-3 kg of metal equals a thickness of about 9 .mu.m), but may be thinner or as large as 72 .mu.m.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first structure having a thickness in a range from 1 µm to 20 µm, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 2016/0250714) in view of Sun et al (US 2009/0236323) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Teer et al (US 4,022,986).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein at least two of the plurality of second laser pulses have different pulse durations.
Nonetheless, Teer teaches wherein at least two of the plurality of second laser pulses have different pulse durations (Col. 9 lines 6-8 ---" Separation in the stage 8 is possible again because the pulses S, G and 1 to n each have a different duration.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhang in view of Sun by incorporating the differing pulse durations as taught by Teer for the benefit of varying the exposure of the laser.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 2016/0250714) in view of Sun et al (US 2009/0236323) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Sun et al (US 6,574,250) (hereinafter referred to as “Sun ‘250”).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein at least two of the plurality of second laser pulses have the same pulse duration.
Nonetheless, Sun ‘250 teaches wherein at least two of the plurality of second laser pulses have the same pulse duration (Col. 4 lines 7-13 ---" FIGS. 3-5 show power versus time graphs of exemplary bursts 50a, 50b, 50c (generically bursts 50) of ultrashort laser pulses 52a, 52b, 52c (generically laser pulses 52) employed to sever links 22 in accordance with the present invention. The duration of each burst 50 is preferably less than 500 ns and more preferably in the range of 10 ns to 200 ns.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhang in view of Sun by incorporating the identical pulse durations as taught by Sun ‘250 for the benefit of maintaining laser exposure while operating the laser.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the pulse duration of at least one of the plurality of second laser pulses is less than or equal to 1 µs.
Nonetheless, Sun ‘250 teaches wherein the pulse duration of at least one of the plurality of second laser pulses is less than or equal to 1 µs (Col. 4 lines 7-13 ---" FIGS. 3-5 show power versus time graphs of exemplary bursts 50a, 50b, 50c (generically bursts 50) of ultrashort laser pulses 52a, 52b, 52c (generically laser pulses 52) employed to sever links 22 in accordance with the present invention. The duration of each burst 50 is preferably less than 500 ns and more preferably in the range of 10 ns to 200 ns.”) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhang in view of Sun by incorporating the identical pulse durations as taught by Sun ‘250 for the benefit of maintaining laser exposure while operating the laser.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein at least two of the plurality of second laser pulses have different peak powers.
Nonetheless, Sun ‘250 teaches wherein at least two of the plurality of second laser pulses have different peak powers (Col. 5 lines 7-11 ---" With reference to FIG. 5, burst 50c depicts one of a variety of different energy density profiles that can be employed advantageously to sever links 22 of link structures 36 having different types and thicknesses of link or passivation materials.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhang in view of Sun by incorporating the pulses having different peak powers as taught by Sun ‘250 for the benefit of varying power depending on the material being processed.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang in view of Sun teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein at least two of the plurality of second laser pulses have the same peak power.
Nonetheless, Sun ‘250 teaches wherein at least two of the plurality of second laser pulses have the same peak power (Col. 4 lines 61-65 ---" With reference to FIG. 3, each ultrashort pulse 52a can be generated with the same energy density to provide a pulse burst 50a with a consistent "flat-top" energy density profile.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhang in view of Sun by incorporating the pulses having the same peak powers as taught by Sun ‘250 for the benefit of maintaining laser exposure while operating the laser.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 are 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.
Claim 21 depends upon claim 19 and is objected too due to dependency.
Claims 31-32 and 36-37 are allowed The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest wherein the controller is configured to control an operation of the AOD system whereby a frequency of the first RF signal is changed at least twice to temporally divide a common laser pulse incident up on the AOD system into a plurality of pulse slices, wherein the frequency of the first RF signal is changed at a rate greater than or equal to 20 kHz..
Claims 38-40 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest wherein the controller is configured to control an operation of the positioner to: deflect the first set of pulse slices to the first scan head; and deflect the second set of pulse slices to the second scan head, wherein at least one pulse slice in the second set of pulse slices exists temporally between two consecutive pulse slices in the first set of pulse slices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sun et al (US 2009/0236323).
Applicant argues that Sun (US 2005/0087522) does not teach “c) generating, at a laser source, a first laser pulse; and d) temporally dividing the first laser pulse into a plurality of second laser pulses.” Examiner respectfully agrees.
However, newly cited prior art reference Sun (2009/0236323) does teach “c) generating, at a laser source, a first laser pulse; and d) temporally dividing the first laser pulse into a plurality of second laser pulses.”
Fig. 7b #228 pulse shape of Sun is a first pulse generated at a laser source. Fig. 7c of Sun is the #228 pulse shape divided temporally into multiple pulses #s 230, 232, and 234.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761