DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-10, 12-16, 18-20, and 27-32 are pending. Claims 5-7 and 17 are canceled. Claims 29-32 are new.
In view of the amendment, filed 08/18/2025, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 02/25/2025:
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
New grounds of rejection are made in response to claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 32 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: new claim 32, in line 2, should read “the substrate . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims contain certain limitations directed to intended use of the claimed apparatus. Such limitations are interpreted to require structure capable of performing the functions but do not require the apparatus to perform specific operational steps. A manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Furthermore, regarding an apparatus which works upon an article or material in its intended use (e.g., a substrate), a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). In view of the specification, the “substrate” of the claims is a material/article worked upon by the apparatus, not part of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2115.
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.
Claim(s) 30-32 is/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 30 recites the limitation "the laser scanning" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the modification layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the first horizontal direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the laser scanning" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the modification layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the first horizontal direction" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the focusing point" in line 2. Claim 1 introduces “a first focusing point” and “a second focusing point,” such that “the focusing point” is unclear as to what element is being referenced. For further examination, any focusing point would apply.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 2 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the mounting surface comprises a concave surface.” Amended claim 1 recites that “the chuck table is configured to deform the substrate into a concave shaped substrate having a curvature corresponding to a curvature of the mounting surface,” i.e., that the mounting surface has a curvature that is concave. Accordingly, claim 2 fails to further limit the subject matter of amended claim 1.
Claim 28 depends from claim 1 and only includes limitations that are already found in amended claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8, 10, 12-16, 18-20, and 27-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al., JP 2010232603 A (citations to previously provided 02/28/2024 WIPO machine translation), in view of Nagai, US 20060081574 A1 (of record), and Richter et al., US 20200398381 A1.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a substrate processing apparatus (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
A chuck table (substrate fixing device S, [0008], [0013], see above) comprising a mounting table (base 1 having substrate support surface, [0008]) having a mounting surface configured such that a substrate is mounted on the mounting surface (mounting surface of mounting plate 2, Fig. 3, see substrate 50), wherein the mounting surface is a curved surface (surface can be curved, Fig. 3(c), see above); and
A laser supply head configured to irradiate the substrate mounted on the mounting table with a laser beam (laser, [0023]; see laser beam LB, Fig. 3(c) above) having a wavelength, pulse width, and power sufficient to form a defect in the substrate mounted on the mounting surface (the laser beam is irradiated to the substrate such that it is heated to thermally expand while deformation is suppressed and compressive stress is generated so as to form a vertical crack in the substrate, [0020], and the laser beam is used to extend the vertical crack, [0021], i.e., a “defect” (the stressed region initiating a crack and/or the crack itself) in the substrate is formed by the laser beam and thus the laser beam parameters are sufficient to form the defect),
Wherein the mounting table comprises a plurality of vacuum channels extending from the mounting surface (Figs. 1-3, [0013]-[0015]), and the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a vacuum pump configured to apply a vacuum pressure to the plurality of vacuum channels of the mounting table (Fig. 1, vacuum pump P, [0013]),
Wherein the mounting table comprises a cavity (chambers 11a-11c), and the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a pneumatic regulator configured to adjust pressure of the cavity by discharging air from the cavity (adjustment valves Va-Vc which discharge air when opened to apply vacuum, [0013], [0017]-[0018]; note that the limitation requires the configuration to adjust the pressure by injecting or discharging air, but does not require both),
Wherein the chuck table is configured to deform the substrate into a concave shaped substrate having a curvature corresponding to a curvature of the mounting surface (Figs. 3c, 5, concave shape, [0027]-[0028]),
Wherein the laser supply head is configured to focus a laser beam in the concave shaped substrate when the substrate is deformed by the chuck table (Figs. 3c, 5, see laser beam LB).
Regarding “while the substrate is deformed into the concave shaped substrate, tensile stress is configured to be applied to a lower side portion of the concave shaped substrate adjacent to the mounting surface of the mounting table, and compressive stress is configured to be applied to an upper side portion of the concave shaped substrate,” the limitation does not clearly reflect a structural limitation to any particular component(s) of the apparatus. Still, the configuration of the concave substrate in Yamamoto results in a tensile stress at the lower side portion of the substrate adjacent the mounting table (Figs. 3c, 5, [0028]) and a corresponding compressive stress at the upper side portion (Figs. 3c, 5).
Regarding “and [the laser supply head is] configured to sequentially perform…” first laser scanning and second laser scanning, the limitations require at most the capability of the claimed apparatus to perform the recited functions. Accordingly, the limitations require at most the capability of the laser supply head to perform scanning of the concave substrate at different focusing depths and thereby form modification layers.
Yamamoto discloses the laser supply head is configured to focus a laser beam on a focusing point in the substrate when the substrate is modified by the chuck table ([0020], Fig. 3(b)-3(c), Figs. 4-5). Yamamoto further discloses the laser supply head being configured (capable) to sequentially perform first laser scanning including irradiating a first focusing point in the substrate with the laser beam (e.g., irradiating for formation of scribe line 52, [0020]-[0021]) and second laser scanning including irradiating a second focusing point in the substrate with the laser beam (irradiating again for extending the vertical crack 53 in the thickness direction to opposite side surface of substrate, [0026]-[0028]).
Yamamoto does not use the terminology of “modification layers” formed in the substrate. However, the specification describes a “modification layer” as a defect region which ultimately forms a crack in the substrate along which the substrate will be cut ([20], [62]-[63]). Yamamoto similarly describes the first and second laser scanning being performed to initiate and extend a crack within the substrate to facilitate separation. As such, Yamamoto further meets the claimed capability of the laser to form “modification layers” in the substrate by the laser scanning.
Yamamoto is silent as to the first focusing point being closer to the mounting surface than the second focusing point.
The claim recites functional language directed to a capability of the laser supply head to irradiate first and second points in the substrate at different vertical distances to the mounting surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would likely have expected that the laser of Yamamoto was capable of irradiating two points in the substrate at different vertical distances to the mounting table, particularly considering the substantially similar application of the laser to extend the vertical crack along the thickness direction of the substrate.
Furthermore, in the analogous art, Nagai similarly discloses radiating a substrate held on a chuck table with a laser beam to form deteriorated layers inside the substrate along dividing lines ([0029]). Nagai teaches irradiating the substrate at different vertical distances to the mounting table by adjusting the focusing point of the laser, and that irradiating at multiple distances may be useful in the case of thicker substrates ([0037]).
In case it was not necessarily present, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify for the apparatus of Yamamoto the capability of irradiating at different focusing points during the first and second laser scanning, for example, the first focusing point being closer to the mounting surface than the second focusing point, in order to ensure that multiple weakened regions could be formed along the thickness of the substrate, as desired by Yamamoto and taught by Nagai.
Regarding a height difference in the vertical direction between a center of the mounting surface and an edge of the mounting surface being between about 25 µm and about 800 µm, Yamamoto discloses the depth of the mounting plate 2 is preferably in the range of 0.1 mm to 5 mm, i.e., 100 µm to 5000 µm. Accordingly, a height difference between a center of the mounting surface, e.g., a lowest point at the center, and an edge of the mounting surface, e.g., a highest point, would necessarily be within the range of up to 100 µm to 5000 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I). 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 selected at least the overlapping portion of the range in defining suitable dimensions for the mounting surface.
Yamamoto does not disclose a curvature radius of the mounting surface being between about 15 mm and 200 mm.
It is noted that a particular curvature radius of the mounting surface in both the present application and the prior art is a variable intended to change depending on a given configuration of the adjustable mounting surface.
In the analogous art, Richter discloses a configuration for producing modification layers via laser radiation to the interior of a solid body 1 mounted via vacuum on a curved surface 117 of a carrier unit 115 (Abstract, [0148]-[0150], Fig. 12). Richter teaches that a curvature of the solid body 1, or substrate, is modified by the curvature of the mounting surface 117, and a preferred curvature of the surface depends on a size of the substrate, preferably within the range between (root of first surface 8 of the solid body 1)*0.25 and (root of first surface 8 of the solid body 1)*100 so as to limit the propagation of the subcritical cracks ([0149], [0151]). Accordingly, as Richter teaches that a curvature radius of the substrate is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the curvature of the mounting surface, with the curvature of the substrate increasing as the curvature of the mounting surface is increased, and where the curvature of the surface should be delimited based on a given substrate size to control the spread of subcritical cracks, the precise curvature radius would have been considered a result-effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed curvature radius cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the curvature radius of the mounting surface of Yamamoto to obtain the desired balance between the curvature of the substrate according to a given substrate size and the allowable propagation of subcritical cracks (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and Yamamoto discloses the mounting surface comprises a concave surface (Fig. 3(c), see above).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and Yamamoto discloses the plurality of vacuum channels comprise at least one first vacuum channel extending from a central portion of the mounting surface of the mounting table (see suction holes 12 at central portion above 11b, communicating with surface of mounting plate 2, [0015]) and at least one second vacuum channel extending from an outer portion of the mounting surface of the mounting table (see suction holes 12 at outer portions above 11a/11c communicating with surface of mounting plate 2, [0015]), and the central portion of the mounting surface is configured to vacuum adsorb a central portion of the substrate (Fig. 3(a)-(c)), and the outer portion of the mounting surface is configured to vacuum adsorb an outer portion of the substrate (Fig. 3(a)-(c)).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Yamamoto discloses the fixing base S may be moved relative to the laser beam ([0021]), and the movement direction is perpendicular to an irradiation direction of the laser beam, so that the scribe line 52 can be formed along the substrate (Fig. 4).
Yamamoto is silent as to a stage.
Nagai, introduced above, further discloses the chuck table which holds the workpiece via suction is configured to be moved along direction perpendicular to the laser beam by a moving mechanism ([0029], Fig. 2). A moving mechanism is considered to meet a “stage” for moving.
In the case it was not already present, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the apparatus of Yamamoto included a stage in order to achieve the described relative motion of the fixing base and the laser beam, as desired by Yamamoto, and in order to effect scanning and/or indexing motion of the substrate, as taught by Nagai.
Regarding claim 10, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and Yamamoto discloses the chuck table is configured to adjust a curvature of the mounting surface of the mounting table ([0017]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and Yamamoto further discloses the pneumatic regulator is configured to adjust pressure of the cavity to modify the mounting surface of the mounting table between a first flat state and a second state in a concave form (Fig. 3(a) flat state, Fig. 3(c) concave form).
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto discloses a substrate processing apparatus configured to perform a stealth dicing process on a substrate (Figs. 1-5), the substrate processing apparatus comprising:
A chuck table (substrate fixing device S, [0008], [0013], see above) comprising a mounting table (base 1 having substrate support surface, [0008]) having a mounting surface configured such that the substrate is vacuum adsorbed on the mounting surface (mounting surface of mounting plate 2, Fig. 3, see substrate 50), wherein the mounting surface comprises a curved surface (Fig. 3(c), see above), the mounting surface being configured such that the substrate is vacuum adsorbed to the mounting surface so that the substrate is modified to have a curvature corresponding to a curvature of the mounting surface (Fig. 3(a)-(c), [0010], [0017]); and
A laser supply head configured to irradiate the substrate attached to the mounting table with a laser beam (laser, [0023]; see laser beam LB, Fig. 3(c) above) having a wavelength, pulse width, and power sufficient to form a defect in the substrate vacuum adsorbed on the mounting surface (the laser beam is irradiated to the substrate such that it is heated to thermally expand while deformation is suppressed and compressive stress is generated so as to form a vertical crack in the substrate, [0020], and the laser beam is used to extend the vertical crack, [0021], i.e., a “defect” (the stressed region initiating a crack and/or the crack itself) in the substrate is formed by the laser beam and thus the laser beam parameters are sufficient to form the defect), a focus of the laser beam being positioned inside the substrate (irradiating along thickness direction of substrate, [0020], requiring a focus position of the laser beam being inside the substrate; note this limitation is directed to a manner of operating the device and the material worked on by the claimed apparatus),
Wherein the mounting table comprises a plurality of vacuum channels extending from the mounting surface (Figs. 1-3, [0013]-[0015]), and the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a vacuum pump configured to apply a vacuum pressure to the plurality of vacuum channels of the mounting table (Fig. 1, vacuum pump P, [0013]), and
Wherein the mounting table comprises a cavity (chambers 11a-11c), and the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a pneumatic regulator configured to adjust pressure of the cavity by discharging air from the cavity (adjustment valves Va-Vc which discharge air when opened to apply vacuum, [0013], [0017]-[0018]; note that the limitation requires the configuration to adjust the pressure by injecting or discharging air, but does not require both),
Wherein the chuck table is configured to deform the substrate into a concave shaped substrate having a curvature corresponding to a curvature of the mounting surface (Figs. 3c, 5, concave shape, [0027]-[0028]).
Regarding “while the substrate is deformed into the concave shaped substrate, tensile stress is configured to be applied to a lower side portion of the concave shaped substrate adjacent to the mounting surface of the mounting table, and compressive stress is configured to be applied to an upper side portion of the concave shaped substrate,” the limitation does not clearly reflect a structural limitation to any particular component(s) of the apparatus. Still, the configuration of the concave substrate in Yamamoto results in a tensile stress at the lower side portion adjacent the mounting table (Figs. 3c, 5, [0028]) and a corresponding compressive stress at the upper side portion (Figs. 3c, 5).
Yamamoto discloses the laser supply head is configured to perform a plurality of laser scanning of irradiating different focusing points in the substrate with the laser beam (irradiating for formation of scribe line 52, [0020]-[0021], and irradiating again for extending the vertical crack 53 in the thickness direction to opposite side surface of substrate, [0026]-[0028]).
Yamamoto is silent as to a focusing point of subsequent laser scanning in the plurality of laser scanning being farther from the mounting surface of the mounting table than a focusing point of preceding laser scanning. However, the claim limitation, reflecting a capability to irradiate focusing points at different distances from the mounting surface, is rendered obvious in view of Nagai as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding a height difference as claimed, Yamamoto renders obvious the claimed range as set forth above for claim 1.
Yamamoto does not disclose a curvature radius of the mounting surface as claimed; however, the claimed range is not considered to confer patentability to the claims in view of Yamamoto and Richter as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 13, and Yamamoto discloses, in a cross-sectional view, the mounting surface of the mounting table extends in a curve form from one edge to another edge of the mounting surface of the mounting table (Figs. 3(b)-3(c)). The depicted curve configuration of Yamamoto aligns with the curve form of the mounting surface as illustrated in the instant application in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 8.
Regarding claim 15, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 14, and Yamamoto discloses the mounting surface of the mounting table has a constant curvature (Figs. 3(b)-3(c)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 13. Yamamoto discloses the remainder of the claim limitations as set forth above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 13, and Yamamoto discloses the mounting table is configured such that the curvature of the mounting surface of the mounting table varies according to the pressure of the cavity ([0017]).
Regarding claim 19, Yamamoto discloses a substrate processing apparatus configured to perform a stealth dicing process on a substrate (Figs. 1-5), the substrate processing apparatus comprising:
A chuck table (substrate fixing device S, [0008], [0013], see above) comprising a mounting table (base 1 having substrate support surface, [0008]), wherein the mounting table comprises a mounting surface configured such that the substrate is vacuum adsorbed on the mounting surface (mounting surface of mounting plate 2, Fig. 3, see substrate 50);
A laser supply head configured to irradiate the substrate attached on the mounting table with a laser beam (laser, [0023]; see laser beam LB, Fig. 3(c) above) having a wavelength, pulse width, and power sufficient to form a defect in the substrate vacuum adsorbed on the mounting surface (the laser beam is irradiated to the substrate such that it is heated to thermally expand while deformation is suppressed and compressive stress is generated so as to form a vertical crack in the substrate, [0020], and the laser beam is used to extend the vertical crack, [0021], [0028], i.e., a “defect” (the stressed region initiating a crack and/or the crack itself) in the substrate is formed by the laser beam and thus the laser beam parameters are sufficient to form the defect), a focus of the laser beam being positioned inside the substrate (irradiating along thickness direction of substrate, [0020], [0028], requiring a focus position of the laser beam being inside the substrate),
Wherein the mounting surface of the mounting table comprises a concave curved surface (Figs. 3(c), 5, see above), and the chuck table is configured to modify the substrate into a concave shaped substrate having a curvature corresponding to a curvature of the mounting surface of the mounting table (Fig. 3(a)-(c), [0010], [0017]), and the laser supply head is configured to irradiate a focusing point in the concave shaped substrate modified by the chuck table with the laser beam (Figs. 3c, 5),
Wherein the mounting table comprises a plurality of vacuum channels extending from the mounting surface (Figs. 1-3, [0013]-[0015]), and the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a vacuum pump configured to apply a vacuum pressure to the plurality of vacuum channels of the mounting table (Fig. 1, vacuum pump P, [0013]),
Wherein the mounting table comprises a cavity (chambers 11a-11c), and the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a pneumatic regulator configured to adjust pressure of the cavity by discharging air from the cavity (adjustment valves Va-Vc which discharge air when opened to apply vacuum, [0013], [0017]-[0018]; note that the limitation requires the configuration to adjust the pressure by injecting or discharging air, but does not require both).
Yamamoto discloses the fixing base S may be moved relative to the laser beam ([0021]), and the movement direction is perpendicular to an irradiation direction of the laser beam, so that the scribe line 52 can be formed along the substrate (Fig. 4). However, Yamamoto is silent as to a stage.
Nagai, introduced above, further discloses the chuck table which holds the workpiece via suction is configured to be moved along direction perpendicular to the laser beam by a moving mechanism ([0029], Fig. 2). A moving mechanism is considered to meet a “stage” for moving.
In the case it was not already present, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the apparatus of Yamamoto included a stage configured to move the mounting table in order to achieve the described relative motion of the fixing base and the laser beam, as desired by Yamamoto, and in order to effect scanning and/or indexing motion of the substrate, as taught by Nagai.
Regarding a height difference as claimed, Yamamoto renders obvious the claimed range as set forth above for claim 1.
Yamamoto does not disclose a curvature radius of the mounting surface as claimed; however, the claimed range is not considered to confer patentability to the claims in view of Yamamoto and Richter as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 19. Yamamoto further discloses the cavity is provided below the mounting surface (see chambers 11a-11c), and the mounting table is configured such that the curvature of the mounting surface of the mounting table varies depending on pressure of the cavity ([0017]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 27, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Yamamoto is silent as to the substrate being a semiconductor wafer, and the laser beam has the wavelength, pulse width, and power sufficient to form a dislocation in a semiconductor material of the semiconductor wafer.
However, Yamamoto discloses the substrate can be, e.g., a glass substrate, a ceramic substrate, a single crystal silicon substrate, or a sapphire substrate ([0031]). These are known semiconductor materials used in semiconductor wafers, as evidenced by Nagai (sapphire wafer, [0002], [0004], silicon wafer, [0028]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the apparatus of Yamamoto was structurally capable of working on (supporting and irradiating) a substrate as claimed, since Yamamoto discloses the apparatus is suitable to work on semiconductor wafer materials.
Furthermore, since the prior art apparatus was already configured to form a defect in the hard material by laser beam heating resulting in a crack and its subsequent propagation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to specify that the laser beam has the wavelength, pulse width, and power sufficient to form a dislocation in a semiconductor material of a semiconductor wafer, depending on a given material being worked upon by the apparatus, e.g., in order to perform the disclosed process on semiconductor wafers to commercially manufacture parts for semiconductors. Nagai, introduced above, shows that cutting processes were routinely performed on semiconductor wafers to manufacture individual chips ([0001]-[0002]).
Regarding claim 28, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and the remaining limitations are addressed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding new claim 29, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 13, and Nagai as applied for claim 8 above further renders obvious the incorporation of a stage as claimed.
Regarding new claim 30, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 19, and Yamamoto further discloses the laser supply head is configured (capable) to perform the laser scanning to form the modification layer as a continuous modification layer in the first horizontal direction (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding new claim 31, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 19, and Yamamoto further discloses the laser supply head is configured (capable) to perform the laser scanning to form the modification layer as a discontinuous modification layer in the first horizontal direction (Figs. 4-5, a laser beam can be turned on/off).
Regarding new claim 32, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 1. The remaining limitations are directed to a manner of operating the claimed apparatus and the materials worked on by the apparatus in an intended use. Since a distance between a focusing point and a surface of a given substrate (material/article worked upon) is adjustable by moving the laser, the substrate, and/or the irradiation point, capabilities of the apparatus as set forth above for claim 1, then the apparatus was capable of the intended use.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al., JP 2010232603 A, in view of Nagai, US 20060081574 A1, and Richter et al., US 20200398381 A1, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hosseini, US 9757815 (of record).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yamamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 8. The combination does not disclose the stage is configured to tilt the mounting table so that an incident angle of the laser beam to the mounting surface of the mounting table is adjusted.
The claim is considered to require the stage to be capable of tilting with the laser position unchanged such that an incident angle of the laser beam would be adjusted as a result of the stage tilting.
In the analogous art, Hosseini discloses a laser processing apparatus including a translatable and tiltable stage such that a substrate can be manipulated to create a wide processing window for cutting parts with normal or non-normal beam incidence angles to create complex features based on the desired characteristics of the part (Fig. 7C; col. 5, lines 50-60; col. 24, lines 22-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the apparatus of modified Yamamoto by further specifying the stage is configured to tilt the mounting table so that an incident angle of the laser beam to the mounting surface of the mounting table is adjusted in order to increase the processing window providing further capability for forming complex features within the substrate based on the desired characteristics of the part, as taught by Hosseini.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (pp. 3-4) that Yamamoto does not disclose the newly recited limitations directed to the laser performing first and second laser scanning of the concave shaped substrate, the application of tensile/compressive stress, or the height difference or curvature radius as recited in amended claim 1. Applicant argues that Yamamoto discloses laser scanning of a convex substrate in Figs. 4-5.
These arguments are not found persuasive for the reasons set forth in the updated rejection of claim 1. Yamamoto discloses laser irradiation of a concave shaped substrate in cited Figs. 3c and 5. Yamamoto discloses the bending of a substrate by the mounting surface in Figs. 3c and 5, and the accompanying descriptions (e.g., [0027]-[0028]), which result in a tensile and compressive stress to the claimed surfaces of the substrate in the same manner as the present invention (instant Figs. 5-6). The present claims are directed to an apparatus that requires the capability of performing the claimed functions. As has been explained throughout the course of examination of the present application, a recitation directed to a manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art where the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114. Regarding a height difference and curvature radius, these limitations are addressed in the updated rejection of claim 1.
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 JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754 /SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754