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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 6th 2026 has been entered.
Claims Status:
Claims 1-8 and 18-22 are pending.
Claims 9-17 are cancelled.
Claims 19-22 are newly added.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8 and 18 are amended.
Claims 1-8 and 18-22 are examined as follow:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
In claim 1, the subject matter of “…the stage includes a holding mechanism configured to hold the second substrate peeled from the bonded substrate on the stage…”, Fig.5, and 7-8 only show the holding mechanism 34 is holding the bonded substrate on the stage, not the second substrate that is peeled from the bonded substrate.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim limitation “holding mechanism” in claims 1 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “mechanism" coupled with functional language “…configured to hold…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, there is not further description in the specification to further clarify the corresponding structure, The limitation “holding mechanism" ONLY described in Paragraph 0020 cited: “…The stage 32 may include a holding mechanism 34. The holding mechanism 34 can hold the substrate 10, which is peeled from the semiconductor device 1 by the laser processing, on the stage 32. In Fig. 4, two holding mechanisms 34 were arranged per one semiconductor device 1. The holding mechanisms 34 were arranged at an end portion of the semiconductor device 1. However, the number and location of the holding mechanisms 34 per one semiconductor device 1 are not particularly limited. It is sufficient that the holding mechanism 34 does not interfere with the laser processing and can recover the peeled substrate 10. The substrate 10 collected without damage by the holding mechanism 34 can be reused…”, however, it is still unclear what actually is holding mechanism, even after the clarification in the remark, it still does not tell me what is the holding mechanism.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-8 and 18-22 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.
In claim 1:
The limitation “…holding mechanism…” invoke 112f, but there is insufficient disclosure in the specification to clearly understand what is actually a “holding mechanism”. Clarification is required.
The limitation “…the stage includes a holding mechanism configured to hold the second substrate peeled from the bonded substrate on the stage …” is indefinite, it is unclear that is the holding mechanism holding the bonded substrate, the second substrate that is still bonded in the bonded substrate, or the loose second substrate that is peeled off the bonded subtract. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, through best understanding of the specification and a person skilled in the art, Examiner assumed that such limitation and the term “holding mechanism” are intended to claim that the holding mechanism is holding the bonded substrate, as long as the bonded substrate have a second substrate for laser peeling, such assumption is based on fig.5 and 7-8 about #34.
Claim 2-8 and 18-22 are all dependent claims of claim 1 above.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monodane et al (US2020/0105572A1 cited) herein set forth as Monodane, in view of Gonska (US2016/0368763A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Gonska, further in view of IDE et al (US2013/0026153A1 previously cited) herein set forth as IDE, and further in view of Harten et al (US2013/0119030A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Harten.
Regarding claim 1, in line with the 112b assumption above, Monodane discloses a processing apparatus using laser (refer to fig. 1a) comprising:
a stage (#3a, fig.1A) configured to hold a plurality of bonded substrates (plurality of #5 on #3a in fig.1A) on concentric circles (referring the circles shape of 3 in fig.1B) and rotate (refer to arrow “A” in fig.1A) around a center (#31, fig.1A) of the concentric circles (referring the circles shape of 3 in fig.1B), each of the plurality of bonded substrates including a first substrate configured to be directly contacted with the stage (Refer as the “conductive silicon substrate” in the citation of paragraph 0002 below, examiner note: Monodane’s processing apparatus is to process semiconductor and raised example of IGBT which has multiple layer cited in the Paragraph 0002 below) and a second substrate (Refer as the “field top layer” in the citation of paragraph 0002 below) above the first substrate (refer to Paragraph 0002 cited: “…there is disclosed a method of manufacturing an insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) used for switching of electric power. In this method, diffusion regions such as a base region and an emitter region, electrodes such as an emitter electrode and a gate electrode, and insulation films such as a gate insulator and an interlayer insulation film are formed on a front surface of a conductive silicon substrate, and diffusion regions such as a field stop layer and a collector layer are formed on a back surface of the conductive silicon substrate…”); and
a first laser irradiation apparatus (one set of #1-#2 and #9 in fig.1A-B) above the second substrate (Refer as the “field top layer” in the citation of paragraph 0002 above) configured to move in a radial direction (refer the moving direction of #4 in fig.1A-B) of the concentric circles (referring the circles shape of 3 in fig.1B), the first laser irradiation apparatus (one set of #1-#2 and #9 in fig.1A-B) including a control circuitry (#6, fig.1A) configured to control an output (refer Paragraph 0051 cited: “…the control device 6 turns off the laser …”) of an pulsed laser (refer to Paragraph 0053 cited: “…the laser oscillator 1 may not be a fiber transmission type LD laser as long as the laser oscillator 1 is a known laser. That is, as the laser oscillator 1, any of a solid-state laser, a gas laser, a fiber laser, and a semiconductor laser may be used. When the laser oscillator 1 is not a fiber transmission type LD laser, a proper optical system 2 is required in each case. Further, any oscillation system is applicable irrespective of a continuous oscillation type laser and a pulse oscillation type laser…”) so that a plurality of laser spots adjacent to each other are (Examiner note: it is expressed that the pulse laser will provide a spot and with rotating base, said spots will be inherently adjacent to each other).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
416
689
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Monodane does not specifically disclose the plurality of laser spots separated from each other; the use of an infrared pulse laser; the stage includes a holding mechanism configured to hold the second substrate peeled from the bonded substrate on the stage and the holding mechanism is disposed on the concentric circles on the stage and positioned closer to an outer edge of the stage than a center of the stage.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, Gonska discloses the use of infrared pulse laser for processing (refer to Paragraph 0060 cited: “…It is favorable to use an infrared (IR) laser, having a wavelength of approx.>600 nm, to close off access openings 7 under a defined atmosphere. The infrared pulses of such lasers 9 penetrate particularly deeply into the silicon substrate and thereby enable particularly deep and reliable closure of access openings 7…”).
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 Monodane’s processing apparatus with the use of infrared pulse laser, as taught by Gonska, in order to provide a deeper penetration and reliable closure of opening (refer to Paragraph 0060 cited: ‘…. The infrared pulses of such lasers 9 penetrate particularly deeply into the silicon substrate and thereby enable particularly deep and reliable closure of access openings …”), such that the improved performance of the penetration and reliable closure provide a better end product and that would improve the marketability of the invention.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, IDE disclose the plurality of laser spots separated from each other (refer to fig. 17B, Solid circle is the plurality of laser spots, and the dotted circle are the separated space between each other).
PNG
media_image3.png
440
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 Monodane’s laser spot with the plurality of laser spots separated from each other, as taught by IDE, in order to provide a faster laser processing speed and increase coverage range at shorter time.
In the similar field of laser irradiation of wafer material, Harten discloses the stage (#2, fig.3) includes a holding mechanism (#12, fig.3) configured to hold the second substrate peeled from the bonded substrate (#11, fig.3) on the stage (#2, fig.3).
PNG
media_image4.png
221
530
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 Monodane’s stage with a holding mechanism configured to hold the second substrate peeled from the bonded substrate on the stage, as taught by Harten, in order to provide an easier, safer and more secured transport for the wafer (refer to Paragraph 0033 cited: “…The individual holders 1 are connected with each other via suitable connecting means 2, allowing a plurality of interconnected holders 1 to be moved simultaneously in a transport device 3 to the right in FIG. 1…”).
Regarding the limitation “…the holding mechanism is disposed on the concentric circles on the stage and positioned closer to an outer edge of the stage than a center of the stage…”, When Harten’s teaching is applied to Monodane’s stage, because Monodane teaches the conveying direction is the concentric rotation of a circle, and Harten’s teaching is to put the holding mechanism along the edge of the conveying path, therefore, 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 Monodane’s stage with the holding mechanism as taught by Harten. Therefore, the holding mechanism is disposed on the concentric circles on the stage and positioned closer to an outer edge of the stage than a center of the stage. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the combination to provide an easier, safer and more secure transport for the wafer (refer to Paragraph 0033 cited: “…The individual holders 1 are connected with each other via suitable connecting means 2, allowing a plurality of interconnected holders 1 to be moved simultaneously in a transport device 3 to the right in FIG. 1…”).
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Monodane does not specifically disclose wherein the control circuitry is further to control an output timing of the infrared pulsed laser so as to satisfy x<L1 when a diameter of the plurality of laser spots is x and a distance between the plurality of laser spots adjacent to each other in a laser traveling direction of the stage is L1.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, IDE further disclose wherein the control circuitry (#22 and #24 in fig.1) is further to control an output timing (Examiner note: controlling the laser output time is inherently disclosed with the prior art) there is a of the infrared pulsed laser so as to satisfy x<L1 (refer to fig. 17B, 1<2 is satisfying x<L1) when a diameter of the plurality of laser spots (refer as the solid circle in fig.17B) is x (refer as the irradiation-solid circle) and a distance between the plurality of laser spots (refer as the solid circle in fig.17B) adjacent to each other in a laser traveling direction (refer to the center line in fig. 17B that go through all circles) of the stage is L1 (refer as the non-irradiation – dotted circle) (refer to fig.17B).
PNG
media_image5.png
503
633
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
440
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 Monodane’s laser spot with the control to satisfy x<L1 when a diameter of the plurality of laser spots is x and a distance between the plurality of laser spots adjacent to each other in a laser traveling direction of the stage is L1, as taught by IDE, in order to provide a better control of the crack generation on the surface of the substrate (refer to Paragraph 0006 cited: “…the crack is formed on the surface of the substrate substantially linearly…”), such that would reduce undesired and uncontrolled crack, and reduce defected product.
Regarding claim 3, the modification Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 2, Monodane further disclose wherein the L1 is a calculation of a ratio of a linear velocity (Refer to fig. 1A and B, #2 movement on #4, Examiner note: that in combination with the main reference the linear velocity is the velocity of the stage in the rotation direction, because in the main reference the stage rotates) of the stage (#3a, fig.1A) in the rotation direction to a pulse repetition frequency of the infrared pulsed laser (refer to fig.1A and B, and Paragraph 0056 cited: “…the drive system 41 is disposed with respect to the object 5 to be treated. However, the relative positional relationship between the optical system 2 and the object 5 to be treated can be changed in the same manner as in the first embodiment. As a result, the same effects as those of the first embodiment can be obtained. That is, also in the third embodiment, in the same manner as in the first embodiment, the laser output is set to be constant, and the objects 5 to be treated are gradually moved simultaneously from an outer side to the center 31 of the rotating table 3 or moved in a direction opposite thereto by the drive systems 41 so that all the lasers are positioned concentrically….”) of the infrared pulsed laser (refer to Paragraph 0040 cited: “…Even when the object 5 to be treated is linearly moved, the relative moving speed between the optical system 2 and the object 5 to be treated is controlled so that the beam scanning speed becomes constant at all the irradiation positions in such a manner that the same power density is obtained at all the irradiation positions...” and also Paragraph 0041 cited: “…In this case, it is appropriate that the peripheral speed be from about 100 m/min to about 800 m/min, the beam output be from about 10 W to about 80 W, and the beam diameter be from about φ50 μm to about φ300 μm. …”), and the control circuit is further configured to control an output timing (Examiner note: controlling the laser output time is inherently disclosed with the prior art) of the infrared pulsed laser so as to satisfy X<L1 (refer to fig. 17B, 1<2 is satisfying x<L1 when in combination in claim 1 rejection above).
PNG
media_image5.png
503
633
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
440
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the modification of Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Monodane further discloses comprising a second laser irradiation apparatus (refer to fig.1A and B for the plurality of #4 and #2, and each set of #4 and #2 is capable of the radial direction movement of the concentric circles) above the second substrate (Refer as the “field top layer” in the citation of paragraph 0002 above) configured to move in a radial direction (refer to the direct of #4s direction) of the concentric circles (referring the circles shape of 3 in fig.1B).
Regarding claim 8, the modification of Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, the modification of Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten already discloses the uses of the infrared pulsed laser in claim 1 rejection, Monodane further discloses wherein the second laser irradiation apparatus is further configured to output the pulsed laser having a frequency different from that the first laser irradiation apparatus (refer to Paragraph 0003 cited: “…there is disclosed that a semiconductor substrate can be increased in temperature to a desired temperature up to a desired depth through use of two lasers having different wavelengths in laser annealing…”, Examiner note: different wavelength is different frequency).
Regarding claim 18, the modification of Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Monodane further discloses wherein the first laser irradiation apparatus (#1-#2 and #9 in fig.1A-B) is further configured to irradiate the multiple laser spots (Examiner note: it is expressed that the pulse laser will provide a spot and with rotating base, said spots will be inherently adjacent to each other on the rotating surface) along a spiral orbit (referring fig.1B, the spiral orbit of the #5 and the rotation of #3) relative to the stage (#3a, fig.1A and #3 in fig.1B) by rotating the plurality of substrates (refer to the multiple #5 in fig.1A and B) held on the concentric circles (referring the circles shape of 3 in fig.1B) while the laser irradiation apparatus (#1-#2 and #9 in fig.1A-B) moves in the radial direction (refer to the moving direction of #4 in fig. 1A and B).
Regarding claim 19, the modification of Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Monodane does not disclose wherein two holding mechanism are arranged per one of the plurality of bonded substrates.
In the similar field of laser irradiation of wafer material, Harten discloses wherein two holding mechanism (#12, fig.3) are arranged per one of the plurality of bonded substrates (#11, fig.3).
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 Monodane’s stage with a holding mechanism configured to hold the second substrate peeled from the bonded substrate on the stage, as taught by Harten, in order to provide an easier, safer and more secured transport for the wafer (refer to Paragraph 0033 cited: “…The individual holders 1 are connected with each other via suitable connecting means 2, allowing a plurality of interconnected holders 1 to be moved simultaneously in a transport device 3 to the right in FIG. 1…”).
Regarding claim 20, the modification of Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Monodane does not disclose the holding mechanism is not provided between the plurality of bonded substrates and the stage.
In the similar field of laser irradiation of wafer material, Harten discloses the holding mechanism (#12, fig.3) is not provided between the plurality of bonded substrates (#11, fig.3) and the stage (#2, fig.3).
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 Monodane’s stage with the holding mechanism is not provided between the plurality of bonded substrates and the stage, as taught by Harten, in order to provide an easier, safer and more secured transport for the wafer (refer to Paragraph 0033 cited: “…The individual holders 1 are connected with each other via suitable connecting means 2, allowing a plurality of interconnected holders 1 to be moved simultaneously in a transport device 3 to the right in FIG. 1…”).
Regarding claim 21, the modification of Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Monodane further discloses wherein the control circuit (#6, fig.1A) is further configured to:
increase a rotational speed of the stage (#3a, fig.1A) when a position of the first laser irradiation apparatus is closer to the center of the stage (#3a, fig.1A) or reduce a frequency of a pulsed laser when a position of the first laser irradiation apparatus (one set of #1-#2 and #9 in fig.1A-B) is closer to the center of the stage (#3a, fig.1A) (refer to paragraph 0038 cited: “…it is required to increase the rotation speed as the irradiation position is brought closer to the center…”), and
increase a moving velocity of the first laser irradiation apparatus (one set of #1-#2 and #9 in fig.1A-B) when the rotational speed of the stage (#3a, fig.1A) is increased (refer to paragraph 0040 cited: “…as the scanning speed is higher, and the beam diameter is smaller, thermal damage to the object 5 to be treated can be reduced, and the first embodiment can also be applied to a thin object to be treated. For the purpose of increasing the scanning speed, it is reasonable to increase the scanning speed by mounting a plurality of objects 5 to be treated on one rotating table 3 and rotating the rotating table 3 as described in the first embodiment. When one object 5 to be treated is rotated, the peripheral speed becomes excessively low in the vicinity of the center 31…”).
Regarding claim 22, the modification of Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Monodane does not explicitly discloses wherein a position of the first laser irradiation apparatus and a position of the second laser irradiation apparatus are not adjacent to each other on the concentric circles of the same concentric circles and not adjacent to each other in the radial direction of the circle with the center of the concentric circles as a circular center, the control circuit is further configured to control the first laser irradiation apparatus to irradiate the plurality of laser spots along a spiral orbit relative to the stage within a first area outside the center of each of the plurality of bonded substrates, and the second laser irradiation apparatus to irradiate the plurality of laser spots along a spiral orbit relative to the stage within a second area inside the center of each of the plurality of bonded substrates, and the frequency of the infrared pulsed laser of the second laser irradiation apparatus whose distance from the center of the concentric circles is smaller is lower than the frequency of the infrared pulsed laser of the first laser irradiation apparatus whose distance from the center of the concentric circles is greater.
However, 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 Monodane’s processing apparatus with wherein a position of the first laser irradiation apparatus and a position of the second laser irradiation apparatus are not adjacent to each other on the concentric circles of the same concentric circles and not adjacent to each other in the radial direction of the circle with the center of the concentric circles as a circular center, the control circuit is further configured to control the first laser irradiation apparatus to irradiate the plurality of laser spots along a spiral orbit relative to the stage within a first area outside the center of each of the plurality of bonded substrates, and the second laser irradiation apparatus to irradiate the plurality of laser spots along a spiral orbit relative to the stage within a second area inside the center of each of the plurality of bonded substrates, and the frequency of the infrared pulsed laser of the second laser irradiation apparatus whose distance from the center of the concentric circles is smaller is lower than the frequency of the infrared pulsed laser of the first laser irradiation apparatus whose distance from the center of the concentric circles is greater, since Monodane’s apparatus is fully capable to perform the cited functional languages in the claims, a person skilled in the art would merely adjust Monodane’s control circuit to made to modification as the matter of design choice or desired application, refer to In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Since the applicant does not state what problem solve or benefit of such limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with Monodane’s teaching.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monodane et al (US2020/0105572A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Monodane, in view of Gonska (US2016/0368763A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Gonska, in view of IDE et al (US2013/0026153A1 previously cited) herein set forth as IDE, further in view of Harten et al (US2013/0119030A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Harten, and further in view of KURITA et al (US2023/0226639A1 previously cited) herein set forth as KURITA.
Regarding claim 4, the modification Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 2, the modification of Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten already discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured to control the output of the infrared pulsed laser so as to satisfy a certain equation and the movement of the laser irradiation in claim 2. The modification of Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten only does not disclose wherein the control circuit is further configured to control the output of the infrared pulsed laser so as to satisfy x<L2 when a distance between the plurality of laser spots adjacent to each other in a moving direction of the first laser irradiation apparatus is L2.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, KURITA discloses each laser spot (refer as “α” in fig.2) in a matrix (refer to fig.1) maintained equal distance (refer to the distance between “β” in fig.2) between each laser spot (refer as “α” in fig.2) in all direction and not overlapping with each other (refer to fig.2).
PNG
media_image6.png
772
544
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding to the limitation “…to satisfy x<L2 when a distance between the plurality of laser spots adjacent to each other in a moving direction of the laser irradiation apparatus is L2…”, the modification of Monodane and IDE only discloses “1<2” on one direction, Therefore in view of KURITA’s teaching of all direction would read on the cited limitation above.
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 Monodane’s laser spots with each laser spot maintained equal distance between each laser spot in all direction and not overlapping with each other, as taught by KURITA, in order to provide better control and provide wider coverage of laser spots area, such that would increase the processing speed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monodane et al (US2020/0105572A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Monodane, in view of Gonska (US2016/0368763A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Gonska, in view of IDE et al (US2013/0026153A1 previously cited) herein set forth as IDE, further in view of Harten et al(US2013/0119030A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Harten, and further in view of Miyazaki et al (US2011/0147351A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Miyazaki.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Monodane does not specifically disclose wherein the control circuit is further configured to control a diameter and frequency of the plurality of laser spots.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, Miyazaki disclose wherein the control circuit (#50, fig.2) is further configured to control a diameter and frequency of the plurality of laser spots (refer to paragraph 0051 cited: “…in addition to the control of the focus position and frequency of the laser beam L, the diameter (flux diameter) of the laser beam L is controlled…”).
PNG
media_image7.png
474
506
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 Monodane’s laser spot with wherein the control unit controls a diameter and frequency of the plurality of laser spots, as taught by Miyazaki, in order to provide a better control of the laser, increase in processing speed and stabler laser piercing (refer to Paragraph 0003 cited: “…in a laser processing apparatus described in Patent document 1, the focus position of a condenser lens is lowered in the depth direction of a workpiece during piercing to achieve high-speed and stable piercing…”)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monodane et al (US2020/0105572A1 previously cited from IDS) herein set forth as Monodane, in view of Gonska (US2016/0368763A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Gonska, in view of IDE et al (US2013/0026153A1 previously cited) herein set forth as IDE, further in view of Harten et al (US2013/0119030A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Harten, and further in view of MOFFATT (US2014/0263180A1 previously cited) herein set forth as MOFFATT.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Monodane, Gonska, IDE and Harten discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, the modification of Monodane, Gonska and IDE does not specifically disclose wherein the infrared pulsed laser is a carbon dioxide gas laser.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, MOFFATT discloses wherein the infrared pulsed laser is a carbon dioxide gas laser (refer to claim 5 cited: “…wherein the laser source comprises a solid state laser, a fiber laser, an excimer laser, a carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2) laser, or the like …”).
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 Monodane’s laser with a carbon dioxide gas laser, as taught by MOFFATT, in order to provide a laser that have well known and high powered, such that would able to increase processing speed to accelerate the completion.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Claim Objection: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on February 6th 2026 that overcame the Claim Objection in the previous office action.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed February 6th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as the following reasons:
Regarding the argument on the drawing objection, the applicant argued: “…The Drawings are not required to depict every operational state of the apparatus, and the written description expressly explains that the holding mechanism is used to recover and retain the second substrate after laser-induced separation via ablation, which is sufficient support. See Specification, paragraphs [0020]-[0021]…”, remark Page 1.
The examiner response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the drawing does not discloses “a second substrate peeled from the bonded substrate” that is held by “holding mechanism”. The drawing only disclosed the “holding mechanism” is holding an UNPEELED “second substrate”, in fact the drawing only discloses the “holding mechanism” is holding the “bonded substrate” with the unpeeled “second substrate” only.
Regarding the argument on 112f and 112b on the “holding mechanism”, the applicant argued: “…The Specification identifies a physical holding mechanism 34, describes its placement at an edge portion of the substrate, and explains its role in retaining a peeled substrate for recovery and reuse, which a person of ordinary skill would understand as sufficient structural disclosure for a substrate-retention element in semiconductor processing equipment…”, remark Page 2. And
“…This rejection appears to stem from the same misunderstanding underlying the drawing objection and the § 112(f) interpretation. As written, claim 1 expressly recites that the holding mechanism is configured to hold "the second substrate peeled from the bonded substrate," which, when read in light of the Specification, clearly refers to the loose substrate after laser-induced separation rather than the bonded assembly. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, as amended, particularly points out and distinctly claims the intended subject matter and is not indefinite.…”, remark Page 3.
The examiner response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is expressed that the specification does not provide any corresponding structures to the “holding mechanism”, in a way that a person skilled in the art to know what actually is a “holding mechanism”, the specification does not have any further corresponding structure disclosed, the specification merely disclosing more functional languages that what the “holding mechanism” do and not what the “holding mechanism” is.
Regarding the argument of the 103 rejection, the applicant argued: “…Gonska, Kurita, Miyazaki and Moffatt, either individually or in combination with Monodane, Ide and Harten, likewise fail to disclose or suggest at least the aforementioned features recited in claim 1, and as such, fail to make up for the deficiencies of Monodane…” (summarized), remark Page 2.
The examiner response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the 112f and 112b issues are remain standing, furthermore due that 112b issue on “holding mechanism”, it is well within boardiest reasonable interpretation to see the “clamp #12” in Prior art Harten as “holding mechanism”, since Harten’s clamp is not between the substrate and the stage too (refer to fig.3). Therefore, such amendment only overcome the pervious rejection but does not overcome the prior art of records. A new ground of rejection is being made above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 April 30th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights