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 .
Prosecution Reopened
In view of the appeal brief filed on 23 July 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Response to Appeal Brief
Applicant’s arguments in Appeal Brief, filed 23 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, additional references were identified, which teach the limitations in the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 13 October 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 9, 12-13 and 16 have been amended. Claims 25-30 have been cancelled. Claims 31-36 are new.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 12-19, and 31-36 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sai et al. (JP-6370648-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Yuhira et al. (JP-2018064049-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Sai teaches a method for dicing (“splitting,” para 0025) a substrate (wafer W, fig. 4A) comprising:
setting a target height (“thickness as the wafer W used in actual production is selected,” para 0025; annotated in fig. 4A; similarly, the Instant Application uses the thickness H1 for the claimed “target height,” fig. 1) for forming a first reforming region (modified layer M, fig. 4A) inside a target substrate (wafer W, fig. 4A);
placing a first sample substrate (inspection wafer WA, fig. 4B) on a top surface of a stage (top surface of tape T holding table 21, fig. 1)
irradiating a laser beam (“focusing of a laser beam, which creates a modified layer M,” para 0025) to the first sample substrate including a first film (base layer 42 and metal foil 43, fig. 3) and a second film (substrate 41, fig. 3) being in contact with the first film, and setting a target condition (“focusing of a laser beam, which creates a modified layer M (see Figure 4B)” para 0025; setting the focus position for the beam in fig. 4B is construed as the “target condition”) on the basis of a sample condition (“processing conditions,” para 0030) that results in forming a condensing point (focus at the point in modified layer M, fig. 4B) of the laser beam at a first height above the top surface of the stage (height from the bottom of the metal foil 43 to the bottom of the modified layer M, annotated in fig. 4b), the upper surface of the first film (upper surface of layer 42, fig. 4B) being in contact with the second film (substrate 41, fig. 4B);
placing the target substrate (wafer W, fig. 4A) on the top surface of the stage (“processing the wafer W on the holding table 21,” para 0015; “the wafer W is placed on the top surface of the holding table 21 for processing, fig. 1; “The wafer W is supported on the ring frame F via a dicing tape T,” para 0012; the top surface of the tape on the holding table is construed as being in contact with the bottom surface of the wafer W, fig. 4A): and
irradiating the target substrate (para 0029) with the laser beam (beam with dashed lines converging at the layer M, fig. 4A) according to the target condition (focus position of the beam, fig. 4A) to form the first reforming region (the beam is focused on the modified layer M, fig. 4A) inside the target substrate at the first height above the top surface of the stage (annotated in fig. 4A),
wherein a thickness of the second film is the target height (referring to the substrate 41 in the wafer WA, “a substrate of the same material and thickness as the wafer W used in actual production is selected,” para 0025; annotated in fig. 4B).
Sai, figs. 4A and 4B (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
423
1008
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
450
1032
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sai does not explicitly disclose that for the target substrate, the target height being a distance from an upper surface of the target substrate to the first reforming region (in fig. 4A, the modified region M is located above the bottom surface of the wafer W); that for the first sample substrate, the condensing point is on an upper surface of the first film (in fig. 4B, the modified region M is located above the bottom surface of the wafer WA).
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting wafers, Yuhira teaches that for the target substrate (wafer 10, fig. 5), the target height being a distance (thickness of wafer 10, fig. 5) from an upper surface of the target substrate (upper surface of wafer 10, fig. 5) to the first reforming region (ablation grooves 21, fig. 5); that for the first sample substrate (wafer 10, fig. 5), the condensing point is on an upper surface of the first film (focus of the beam 52 is at the upper surface of the metal film 20, fig. 5).
Yuhira, fig. 5 (annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
372
790
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sai, in view of the teachings of Yuhira, by locating the modified layer M, as taught in figs. 4A and 4B of Sai, directly at the bottom of the wafer W (Sai, fig. 4A) / substrate 41 (Sai, fig. 4B), as taught by Yuhira in fig. 5, and by using a metal layer 20, as taught by Yuhira, directly under the wafer W, as taught by Sai in fig. 4A, in order to form an ablation groove such that any debris generated by the film adheres to the underlying dicing tape (Yuhira, para 0017), and because it would have been obvious to lower the modified region M to the bottom surface of the substrate 41 in fig. 4B, if the modified region M was located at the bottom of the wafer W in fig. 4A, i.e., based on the teachings of Sai, it would be beneficial to identify the width of the planned division line L to determine the lateral thermal deformation if the modified layer M was lowered (Sai, para 0030).
Regarding claim 2, Sai teaches wherein the target substrate includes the same material as the second film (“same material,” para 0025).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sai et al. (JP-6370648-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Yuhira et al. (JP-2018064049-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Rees et al. (US-20120133012-A1).
Regarding claim 3, Sai teaches the first film (base layer 42 and metal foil 43, fig. 3; the metal foil can be “tin,” para 0027).
Sai does not explicitly disclose wherein a reflectivity of the first film to the laser beam is greater than an absorptivity of the first film to the laser beam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting wafers, Rees teaches wherein a reflectivity of the first film (“tin foil,” para 0022) to the laser beam is greater than an absorptivity of the first film to the laser beam (“This layer should have a reflection of >80% in the wavelength range of 300 nm to 1000 nm,” para 0022; construed as a reflectivity of greater than 80% and absorptivity of less than 20%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sai, in view of the teachings of Rees, where the tin metal foil 43, as taught by Akutagawa, had a reflectivity above 80%, as taught by Rees, because tin is a highly reflective material that would reflect the laser beam, preventing damage to the underlying holding table (the Specification of the Instant Application discloses that “tin” is an acceptable material for the film, para 0036, and it is well-known that tin is a reflective material).
Regarding claim 14, Sai teaches wherein the setting of the sample condition further includes: monitoring (“the imaging means 32 (see Figure 1) images the metal foil 43 of the inspection wafer WA,” para 0030) a second laser beam (“stray light from the laser beam,” para 0030; the construed “second laser beam” is annotated in fig. 4B) resulting from the laser beam irradiated to the first sample substrate for a certain period of time (time to detect the thermal deformation S, fig. 4B; para 0030).
Sai does not explicitly disclose the second laser beam being reflected by the upper surface of the first film.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting wafers, Rees teaches the second laser beam being reflected by the upper surface of the first film (“The light 7 hits the active layer 5 and the part of the light which penetrates through the active layer 5 is reflected back by the metal foil 3,” para 0050).
Sai, fig. 4B (annotated)
PNG
media_image4.png
473
1063
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sai, in view of the teachings of Rees, where the tin metal foil 43, as taught by Akutagawa, reflected stray light, as taught by Rees, because tin is a highly reflective material that would reflect the stray light, which would then be detected by the imaging means taught by Sai (both Sai and Rees teach using tin for the metal foil; the Specification of the Instant Application discloses that “tin” is an acceptable material for the film, para 0036, and it is well-known that tin is a reflective material).
Claims 8-9, 15, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sai et al. (JP-6370648-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Yuhira et al. (JP-2018064049-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ito et al. (US-20110163079-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sai teaches further comprising: setting the sample condition (“processing conditions,” para 0030).
Sai does not explicitly disclose wherein: the setting of the sample condition includes: at least one of setting of a first distance between the first sample substrate and an optical system for irradiating the first sample substrate with the laser beam, and setting of a correction collar value of the optical system.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting wafers, Ito teaches wherein: the setting of the sample condition (“(the unevenness of the wafer surface) is determined,” para 0079; the unevenness of the wafer surface is construed as being a processing condition) includes: at least one of setting of a first distance between the first sample substrate and an optical system (distance between wafer W and lens 26, fig. 1) for irradiating the first sample substrate with the laser beam (“maintain the position of the condensing lens 26 in the wafer thickness direction constant,” para 0079), and setting of a correction collar value of the optical system (Instant Application discloses that “setting of a correction collar value” is “correcting” for “aberrations;” Ito teaches correcting for aberrations in the surface in figs. 4A-C).
Ito, fig. 1
PNG
media_image5.png
848
1208
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sai, in view of the teachings of Ito, by using the laser dicing apparatus 10, as taught by Ito, instead of the laser processing means 31, as taught by Sai, in order to use an apparatus that controls the condensing-point position adjustment based of the unevenness of the surface of the wafer for the advantage of performing high-precision dicing (Ito, paras 0009-0010).
Regarding claim 9, Sai teaches wherein the setting of the target condition further includes: irradiating a second sample substrate (wafer WA, fig. 4C) with the laser beam to form a second reforming region (modified layer M, fig. 4C ) inside the second sample substrate according to the sample condition (thickness of layer 42, fig. 4C; the thickness of the layer is construed as being a processing condition, para 0031), acquiring an imaging data of the second reforming region (para 0030; imaging the thermal deformation S in fig. 4C is construed as being an image of the modified layer M, fig. 4C), and adjusting the sample condition and setting the target condition on the basis of the imaging data (the thickness of the layer 42 is adjusted based on the detection of the deformation S, paras 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 15, Sai teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the setting of the sample condition further includes: monitoring motion of the condensing point of the laser beam irradiated to the first sample substrate according to the distance between the first sample substrate and an optical system that irradiates the first sample substrate with the laser beam, and determining a type of aberration.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting wafers, Ito teaches wherein the setting of the sample condition (“(the unevenness of the wafer surface) is determined,” para 0079; the unevenness of the wafer surface is construed as being a processing condition) further includes: monitoring motion of the condensing point of the laser beam irradiated to the first sample substrate (“the actuator 27 adjusts the position of the condensing point of the laser beam,” para 0079) according to the distance between the first sample substrate and an optical system (distance between wafer W and lens 26, fig. 1) that irradiates the first sample substrate with the laser beam (para 0078), and determining a type of aberration (Ito teaches determining and correcting for types of aberrations in the surface in figs. 4A-C; para 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sai, in view of the teachings of Ito, by using the laser dicing apparatus 10, as taught by Ito, instead of the laser processing means 31, as taught by Sai, in order to use an apparatus that controls the condensing-point position adjustment based of the unevenness of the surface of the wafer for the advantage of performing high-precision dicing (Ito, paras 0009-0010).
Regarding claim 33, Sai teaches wherein the second sample substrate (substrate 41, wafer WA, fig. 4C) includes the same material as the second film (substrate 41, wafer WA, fig. 4B; “same material,” para 0025).
Claims 12-13 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sai et al. (JP-6370648-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Yuhira et al. (JP-2018064049-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Ito et al. (US-20110163079-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above and further in view of Rees et al. (US-20120133012-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sai teaches wherein the laser beam is a first laser beam (beam with dashed lines above modified layer M, fig. 4B), and the setting of the sample condition includes: monitoring (“the imaging means 32 (see Figure 1) images the metal foil 43 of the inspection wafer WA,” para 0030) a second laser beam (“stray light from the laser beam,” para 0030; the construed “second laser beam” is annotated in fig. 4B) resulting from the first laser beam irradiated to the first sample substrate (“thermal deformation S is detected in the metal foil 43 due to stray light from the laser beam,” para 0030; construed such that the stray light results from the laser beam) to set the sample condition (“standard processing conditions are determined,” para 0030).
Sai does not explicitly disclose the second laser beam being reflected by the upper surface of the first film.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting wafers, Rees teaches the second laser beam being reflected by the upper surface of the first film (“The light 7 hits the active layer 5 and the part of the light which penetrates through the active layer 5 is reflected back by the metal foil 3,” para 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sai, in view of the teachings of Rees, where the tin metal foil 43, as taught by Akutagawa, reflected stray light, as taught by Rees, because tin is a highly reflective material that would reflect the stray light, which would then be detected by the imaging means taught by Sai (both Sai and Rees teach using tin for the metal foil; the Specification of the Instant Application discloses that “tin” is an acceptable material for the film, para 0036, and it is well-known that tin is a reflective material).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sai in view of Yuhira, Ito, and Rees as set forth above regarding claim 12 teaches the invention of claim 13. Specifically, Ito teaches wherein the setting of the sample condition includes: repeating performing the following steps at least once (the adjustment of the position of the condensing point is repeated in forming the reformed region P, fig. 5; paras 0092-0094): setting a first distance between the first sample substrate and an optical system (distance between wafer W and lens 26, fig. 1) that irradiates the first sample substrate with the first laser beam (“the laser beam which irradiates the surface of the wafer W,” para 0078), moving (fig. 5) at least one of the first sample substrate and the optical system according to the set first distance (“maintain the position of the condensing lens 26 in the wafer thickness direction constant,” para 0079), and then, acquiring an imaging data (images are obtained “reflected by the surface of the wafer W,” para 0078). Additionally, Sai teaches acquiring imaging data (“the imaging means 32 (see Figure 1) images the metal foil 43 of the inspection wafer WA,” para 0030) obtained by imaging a second laser beam (“stray light from the laser beam,” para 0030; the construed “second laser beam” is annotated in fig. 4B) resulting from the laser beam irradiated to the first sample substrate (upper surface of foil 43, fig. 4B; “thermal deformation S is detected in the metal foil 43 due to stray light from the laser beam,” para 0030; construed such that the stray light is reflected and detected by the imaging means 32, para 0030), and setting a correction value (“standard processing conditions are determined,” para 0030) according to movement (movement of thermal deformation S, fig. 4B) on the basis of the repeatedly imaged imaging data (imaging is repeated in fig. 4C). Moreover, Rees teaches the second laser beam being reflected by the upper surface of the first film (“The light 7 hits the active layer 5 and the part of the light which penetrates through the active layer 5 is reflected back by the metal foil 3,” para 0050).
Regarding claim 31, Sai teaches wherein the monitoring (“the imaging means 32 (see Figure 1) images the metal foil 43 of the inspection wafer WA,” para 0030) is performed using imaging data of an image formed by the second laser beam (“thermal deformation S is detected in the metal foil 43 due to stray light from the laser beam,” para 0030).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sai et al. (JP-6370648-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Yuhira et al. (JP-2018064049-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Ito et al. (US-20110163079-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8-9 above and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (US-20170040235-A1).
Regarding claim 10, Sai teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein adjusting the sample condition and setting the target condition on the basis of the imaging data further includes: acquiring a second distance between the second sample substrate and the optical system and a length of the second reforming region, on the basis of the imaging data, and adjusting power of the laser beam on the basis of the second distance and the length of the second reforming region.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting wafers, Kobayashi teaches wherein adjusting the sample condition and setting the target condition (“focal position of the laser beam,” para 0046) further includes: acquiring a second distance between the second sample substrate and the optical system (distance between means 5 and processing point P, fig. 4B) and a length of the second reforming region (“the laser processing is performed again,” para 0046; construed such that in the process of assessing the damage to the metal foil again, the focal position taught in fig. 4B is acquired again), on the basis of the imaging data (“After performing the damage detecting step,” para 0046; construed such that the images are used to detect damage, as taught by Sai), and adjusting power of the laser beam (“adjusted … the average power of the laser beam,” para 0046) on the basis of the second distance and the length of the second reforming region (the basis of the adjustment is the “damage D1 caused by leaky light transmitted directly below the focal point,” construed such that the basis of the damage is the focal distance, where the damage is detected as a result of the “modified layer forming step,” paras 0042-0043, which is construed as the claimed “second reforming region”).
Kobayashi, fig. 4B
PNG
media_image6.png
378
710
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sai, in view of the teachings of Kobayashi, by using the images collected in fig. 4C, as taught by Sai, to make adjustments to the power of the beam and focal position, as taught by Kobayashi, because in addition to adjusting the focal position of the laser beam to contain thermal deformation, the average power of the laser beam can be adjusted to avoid causing damage (Kobayashi, paras 0029-0031, 0042-0043, and 0046; Sai generically teaches adjusting the “average power” and the “position of the focusing point,” para 0038).
Claims 16-19 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sai et al. (JP-6370648-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Yuhira et al. (JP-2018064049-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Rees et al. (US-20120133012-A1).
Regarding claim 16, Sai teaches a method for dicing (“splitting,” para 0025) a substrate (wafer W, fig. 4A) comprising:
placing a first sample substrate (inspection wafer WA, fig. 4B) on a top surface of a stage (top surface of tape T holding table 21, fig. 5A; to complete the process shown in fig. 4B, modified layer formation process is carried out according to fig. 5A; para 0034);
irradiating the first sample substrate including a first film (base layer 42 and metal foil 43, fig. 3) and a second film (substrate 41, fig. 3) being in contact with the first film with a first laser beam (beam in fig. 4B; “focusing of a laser beam, which creates a modified layer M,” para 0025);
monitoring (“the imaging means 32 (see Figure 1) images the metal foil 43 of the inspection wafer WA,” para 0030) a second laser beam (“stray light from the laser beam,” para 0030; the construed “second laser beam” is annotated in fig. 4B) resulting from the first laser beam (annotated in fig. 4B), an upper surface of the first film (upper surface of foil 43, fig. 4B) being in contact with the second film (substrate 41, fig. 4B) , and setting a target condition (“focusing of a laser beam, which creates a modified layer M (see Figure 4B)” para 0025; setting the focus position for the beam in fig. 4B is construed as the “target condition”) on the basis of a sample condition (“processing conditions,” para 0030) which results in forming a condensing point (focus at the point in modified layer M, fig. 4B) of the first laser beam, which is at a first height above the top surface of the stage (annotated in fig. 4A); and
placing a target substrate (wafer W, fig. 4A) different from the first sample substrate on the top surface of the stage (“processing the wafer W on the holding table 21,” para 0015; “the wafer W is placed on the top surface of the holding table 21 for processing, fig. 1; “The wafer W is supported on the ring frame F via a dicing tape T,” para 0012; the top surface of the tape on the holding table is construed as being in contact with the bottom surface of the wafer W, fig. 4A);
forming a first reforming region inside the target substrate (the beam is focused on the modified layer M, fig. 4A) at the first height above the top surface of the stage (annotated in fig. 4A) according to the target condition (focus position of the beam, fig. 4A), and dicing the target substrate (“the wafer W is divided into individual device chips, using the modified layer M,” para 0015).
Sai does not explicitly disclose; that for the first sample substrate, the second laser beam being reflected by the upper surface of the first film; the condensing point is on an upper surface of the first film (in fig. 4B, the modified region M is located above the bottom surface of the wafer WA).
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting wafers, Yuhira teaches that for the first sample substrate (wafer 10, fig. 5), the condensing point is on an upper surface of the first film (height of metal film 20, annotated in fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sai, in view of the teachings of Yuhira, by locating the modified layer M, as taught in figs. 4A and 4B of Sai, directly at the bottom of the wafer W (Sai, fig. 4A) / substrate 41 (Sai, fig. 4B), as taught by Yuhira in fig. 5, and by using a metal layer 20, as taught by Yuhira, directly under the wafer W, as taught by Sai in fig. 4A, in order to form an ablation groove such that any debris generated by the film adheres to the underlying dicing tape (Yuhira, para 0017), and because it would have been obvious to lower the modified region M to the bottom surface of the substrate 41 in fig. 4B, if the modified region M was located at the bottom of the wafer W in fig. 4A; based on the teachings of Sai, it would be beneficial to identify the width of the planned division line L to determine the lateral thermal deformation if the modified layer M was lowered (Sai, para 0030).
Sai/Yuhira do not explicitly disclose the second laser beam being reflected by the upper surface of the first film.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting wafers, Rees teaches the second laser beam being reflected by the upper surface of the first film (“The light 7 hits the active layer 5 and the part of the light which penetrates through the active layer 5 is reflected back by the metal foil 3,” para 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sai, in view of the teachings of Rees, where the tin metal foil 43, as taught by Akutagawa, reflected stray light, as taught by Rees, because tin is a highly reflective material that would reflect the stray light, which would then be detected by the imaging means taught by Sai (both Sai and Rees teach using tin for the metal foil; the Specification of the Instant Application discloses that “tin” is an acceptable material for the film, para 0036, and it is well-known that tin is a reflective material).
Regarding claim 17, Sai teaches wherein the first film (base layer 42 and metal foil 43, fig. 3) includes one of tin, chromium, platinum, gold, silver, and aluminum (para 0027).
Regarding claim 18, Sai teaches wherein: the first film includes a material (“aluminum (Al), tin (Sn), platinum (Pt), gold (Au), silver (Ag), indium (In), lead (Pb), copper (Cu), and chromium (Cr),” para 0027) different from the second film (“(Si), silicon carbide (SiC), sapphire, or gallium nitride (GaN),” para 0025), and the second film includes the same material as the target substrate (“same material,” para 0025).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sai in view of Yuhira and Rees as set forth above regarding claim 16 teaches the invention of claim 19. Specifically, Yuhira teaches wherein a distance (thickness of wafer 10, fig. 5) from an upper surface of the target substrate (upper surface of wafer 10, fig. 5) to the first reforming region (ablation grooves 21, fig. 5) is a thickness of the second film (thickness of wafer 10, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 32, Sai teaches wherein the monitoring (“the imaging means 32 (see Figure 1) images the metal foil 43 of the inspection wafer WA,” para 0030) is performed using imaging data of an image formed by the second laser beam (“thermal deformation S is detected in the metal foil 43 due to stray light from the laser beam,” para 0030).
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sai et al. (JP-6370648-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Yuhira et al. (JP-2018064049-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Rees et al. (US-20120133012-A1) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Ito et al. (US-20110163079-A1).
Regarding claim 34, Sai teaches further comprising: setting the sample condition (“processing conditions,” para 0030).
Sai does not explicitly disclose wherein: the setting of the sample condition includes: at least one of setting of a first distance between the first sample substrate and an optical system for irradiating the first sample substrate with the laser beam, and setting of a correction collar value of the optical system.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting wafers, Ito teaches wherein: the setting of the sample condition (“(the unevenness of the wafer surface) is determined,” para 0079; the unevenness of the wafer surface is construed as being a processing condition) includes: at least one of setting of a first distance between the first sample substrate and an optical system (distance between wafer W and lens 26, fig. 1) for irradiating the first sample substrate with the laser beam (“maintain the position of the condensing lens 26 in the wafer thickness direction constant,” para 0079), and setting of a correction collar value of the optical system (Instant Application discloses that “setting of a correction collar value” is “correcting” for “aberrations;” Ito teaches correcting for aberrations in the surface in figs. 4A-C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sai, in view of the teachings of Ito, by using the laser dicing apparatus 10, as taught by Ito, instead of the laser processing means 31, as taught by Sai, in order to use an apparatus that controls the condensing-point position adjustment based of the unevenness of the surface of the wafer for the advantage of performing high-precision dicing (Ito, paras 0009-0010).
Regarding claim 35, Sai teaches wherein the setting of the target condition further includes: irradiating a second sample substrate (wafer WA, fig. 4C) with the laser beam to form a second reforming region (modified layer M, fig. 4C ) inside the second sample substrate according to the sample condition (thickness of layer 42, fig. 4C; the thickness of the layer is construed as being a processing condition, para 0031), acquiring an imaging data of the second reforming region (para 0030; imaging the thermal deformation S in fig. 4C is construed as being an image of the modified layer M, fig. 4C), and adjusting the sample condition and setting the target condition on the basis of the imaging data (the thickness of the layer 42 is adjusted based on the detection of the deformation S, paras 0030-0031).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sai et al. (JP-6370648-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Yuhira et al. (JP-2018064049-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), Rees et al. (US-20120133012-A1), and Ito et al. (US-20110163079-A1) as applied to claims 16 and 34-35 above and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (US-20170040235-A1).
Regarding claim 36, Sai teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein adjusting the sample condition and setting the target condition on the basis of the imaging data further includes: acquiring a second distance between the second sample substrate and the optical system and a length of the second reforming region, on the basis of the imaging data, and adjusting power of the laser beam on the basis of the second distance and the length of the second reforming region.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting wafers, Kobayashi teaches wherein adjusting the sample condition and setting the target condition (“focal position of the laser beam,” para 0046) further includes: acquiring a second distance between the second sample substrate and the optical system (distance between means 5 and processing point P, fig. 4B) and a length of the second reforming region (“the laser processing is performed again,” para 0046; construed such that in the process of assessing the damage to the metal foil again, the focal position taught in fig. 4B is acquired again), on the basis of the imaging data (“After performing the damage detecting step,” para 0046; construed such that the images are used to detect damage, as taught by Sai), and adjusting power of the laser beam (“adjusted … the average power of the laser beam,” para 0046) on the basis of the second distance and the length of the second reforming region (the basis of the adjustment is the “damage D1 caused by leaky light transmitted directly below the focal point,” construed such that the basis of the damage is the focal distance, where the damage is detected as a result of the “modified layer forming step,” paras 0042-0043, which is construed as the claimed “second reforming region”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sai, in view of the teachings of Kobayashi, by using the images collected in fig. 4C, as taught by Sai, to make adjustments to the power of the beam and focal position, as taught by Kobayashi, because in addition to adjusting the focal position of the laser beam to contain thermal deformation, the average power of the laser beam can be adjusted to avoid causing damage (Kobayashi, paras 0029-0031, 0042-0043, and 0046; Sai generically teaches adjusting the “average power” and the “position of the focusing point,” para 0038).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Appeal Brief filed 23 July 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Sai combined with Yuhira or Sai combined with Yuhira and Rees.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 8/27/2026
Prosecution Insights