DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/03/2026 has been entered and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A full rejection can be found below.
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.
Claim(s) 23 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brusberg (US 20200363583 A1) in view of HOSSEINI (US 20150136743 A1) and Tamura (US 20070111481 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Brusberg (US 20200363583 A1) teaches a method comprising:
conducting a first process on a first waveguide combiner of a substrate having at least two waveguide combiners (Paragraph 65, sheet 10 supports one or more optical waveguides; Paragraph 68, three sheet waveguides 22), the first process comprising forming laser spots along a dicing path corresponding to an outline of the first waveguide combiner (Paragraph 108, singulation method wherein the modified regions are formed such as to define unmodified sections around the sheet waveguides)
conducting a second process on a second waveguide combiner of the substrate (Paragraphs 9-12, singulation methods include a multiple pass approach that comprises performing a first pass of a focused laser over a first path and a second pass over a second pass that transverses the first pass; Figure 11a-11b Paragraphs 122-124, singulation method allow for the sheet 10 to be cut into one or more substrates having essentially an arbitrary outline shape; Paragraph 79, system is used to define one or more of the singulation lines SL in the sheet so that it can be singulated to from two or more substrates 110) having the at least two waveguide combiners (Figures 1D and 4 Paragraphs 70 and 97, array of modified regions 300 and singulation lines facilitate singulation of the sheet 10 wherein multiple processes are performed on multiple waveguide combines such as to singulate them), the second process comprising the forming laser spots along the dicing path corresponding to the outline of the second waveguide combiner (Paragraph 108, singulation method wherein the modified regions are formed such as to define unmodified sections around the sheet waveguides)
removing the first waveguide combiner with each of the laser spots having the space therebetween via stress applied to at least one of the first waveguide combiner or the substrate (Paragraph 99, sheet 10 is singulated by separating the sheet along one or more singulation lines SL which can be in the form of a breaking stress).
While the Office does not concede the point, the applicant may argue that the singulation method of Brusberg does not explicitly show that the dicing path corresponds to the outline of the combiner and instead forms an array of singulation lines. However, Paragraphs 32-33 and Figure 2 of HOSSEINI (US 20150136743 A1) teaches a method of closed form release for brittle materials using burst ultrafast laser pulses, wherein a plurality of optical components can be cut in a plurality of geometric configurations using ultrafast laser pulses. As such, it would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brusberg with HOSSEINI and have the dicing path correspond to the outline of the combiners. This would have been done to form any desired geometric configuration of the waveguide combiner (HOSSEINI Paragraph 32).
Brusberg fails to teach:
the first process comprising forming successive sets of laser spots along a dicing path by making at least three separate and sequential passes along the dicing path with a laser, wherein after the forming the successive sets of laser spots along the dicing path each of the laser spots have a space therebetween;
the second process comprising the forming successive sets of the laser spots along the dicing path by making at least three separate and sequential passes along the dicing path with a laser, wherein after the forming the successive sets of laser spots along the dicing path of the second waveguide combiner each of the laser spots have a space therebetween
Tamura (US 20070111481 A1) teaches a wafer cutting and dividing method, comprising:
the first process comprising forming successive sets of laser spots along a dicing path by making at least three separate and sequential passes along the dicing path with a laser (Paragraph 34, multiple layers of modified area groups are formed by the laser processing machine along the predetermined cutting line of the wafer 50 at constant intervals; Paragraph 35, depth position of the laser beam on the wafer is changed for each of the three modified layer of the modified area groups Ga-Gc; Paragraphs 36-38, the layers are formed one at a time from the farthest layer to the closest layer with respect to the top surface which would result in the laser passing along the dividing path three times), wherein after the forming the successive sets of laser spots along the dicing path each of the laser spots have a space therebetween (Figure 6 Paragraph 93, constant intervals d1-d3 are formed between each successive sets of laser spots along the cutting line of the wafer 50);
the second process comprising the forming successive sets of the laser spots along the dicing path by making at least three separate and sequential passes along the dicing path with a laser (Paragraph 34, multiple layers of modified area groups are formed by the laser processing machine along the predetermined cutting line of the wafer 50 at constant intervals; Paragraph 35, depth position of the laser beam on the wafer is changed for each of the three modified layer of the modified area groups Ga-Gc; Paragraphs 36-38, the layers are formed one at a time from the farthest layer to the closest layer with respect to the top surface which would result in the laser passing along the dividing path three times), wherein after the forming the successive sets of laser spots along the dicing path of the second waveguide combiner each of the laser spots have a space therebetween (Figure 6 Paragraph 93, constant intervals d1-d3 are formed between each successive sets of laser spots along the cutting line of the wafer 50)
removing the first waveguide combiner with each of the laser spots having the space therebetween via stress applied to at least one of the first waveguide combiner or the substrate (Paragraphs 46-49, stretching stress is applies to the modified area groups such that the wafer can be accurate cut and divided with a small amount of force)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brusberg with Tamura and have the process of separating the waveguide comprise forming a plurality of successive laser spots using at least three passes of the laser along the dicing path, wherein after forming the laser spots a space exists between said laser spots. This would have been done such that only a small amount of stress is required for diving the wafer in an accurate manner (Tamura Paragraphs 46-49).
Regarding claim 33, Brusberg as modified teaches the method of claim 23.
Tamura further teaches:
for each pass of the at least three passes, a plurality of the laser spots are formed by the laser sequentially one after the other (Paragraph 29, multiple modified areas R are formed by the laser at constant intervals for each of the modified area groups).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 23.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brusberg (US 20200363583 A1) in view of HOSSEINI (US 20150136743 A1) and Tamura (US 20070111481 A1) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of FURUTA (JP 2016054208 A).
Regarding claim 34, Brusberg as modified teaches the method of claim 33.
Brusberg as modified fails to explicitly teach:
for each pass of the at least three passes the plurality of the laser spots have a pitch between adjacent laser spots of the corresponding pass that is between about 3 times and about 10 times greater than a laser spot diameter of the plurality of the laser spots
FURUTA (JP 2016054208 A) teaches a wafer processing method, wherein:
for each pass of the at least three passes the plurality of the laser spots have a pitch between adjacent laser spots of the corresponding pass that is between about 3 times and about 10 times greater than a laser spot diameter of the plurality of the laser spots (Paragraph 37, the relationship between the reposition frequency of the pulsed laser beam and the feed rate is set so that the distance between adjacent beam spots is within the range of 2.5D to 5D wherein the diameter of the focal point spot is D)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brusberg with FURUTA and have the pitch between the plurality of laser spots for each pass be between 2.5D and 5D. This would have been done to avoid damaging the device caused during continuous irradiation of the pulse laser beam (FURUTA Paragraph 40).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brusberg (US 20200363583 A1) in view of HOSSEINI (US 20150136743 A1), Tamura (US 20070111481 A1), and FURUTA (JP 2016054208 A) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Nagai (US 20050090077 A1) and HUR (KR 101952756 B1).
Regarding claim 35, Brusberg as modified teaches the method of claim 34.
Brusberg as modified fails to teach:
“a value of the space between the laser spots after the at least three passes is between about 0.5 times and about 1.0 times greater than the laser spot diameter”
However, Nagai (US 20050090077 A1) teaches of a wafer dividing method of forming a plurality of laser spots at multiple layers within a wafer such as to separate a wafer across a dividing line (Nagai Paragraph 48) wherein a coefficient k represents the distance between adjacent spots of the pulse laser beam and wherein a k coefficient of between 1.0 (wherein a space begins to form between adjacent spots) and 2.5 (wherein a space formed between adjacent spots of the pulse laser beam is equal to the diameter of each laser spot) is ideal for ensuring that the stress requiring for dividing the semiconductor wafer is small (Nagai Paragraphs 50-51). This is in the range of 0.5 times to about 1.0 times the laser spot diameter. Furthermore, HUR (KR 101952756 B1) teaches a wafer cutting method wherein a second plurality of second process areas are formed between the formation of a first plurality of first processing areas such as to allow residual heat which was formed from the first processing to extinguish before performing the second process areas (HUR Figures 4-5 Paragraph 63). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brusberg with Nagai and HUR and have the multiple passes within a single layer be performed by a single laser such that laser spots are formed within the range of 0.5 times to 1.0 times the laser spot diameter, while having each pass have a pitch between 2.5D and 5D. This would have been done to perform the cutting while maintaining the strength of the wafer after cutting (HUR Paragraph 45), while also achieving the benefits of ensuring that the stress required for dividing remains small (Nagai Paragraphs 50-51) and of avoiding damage to the device caused during continuous irradiation of the pulse laser beam when the distance between adjacent spots is less than 2.5D (FURUTA Paragraph 40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 20-22 and 29-32 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights