LASER PROCESSING DEVICE AND LASER PROCESSING METHOD

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 The amendment filed 4 September 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s arguments, filed 4 September 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. After reviewing the prior art of record, a reference was identified, which teaches the amended portions of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand. Status of the Claims In the amendment dated 4 September 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1 and 7 have been amended. Claims 1-7 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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanoue (US-20210039203-A1, effective filing date of 1 March 2019) in view of Sato et al. (JP-2015062943-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Uekihara et al. (JP-2017064747-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure). Regarding claim 1, Tanoue teaches a laser processing device (modification layer forming apparatus 31, fig. 3; laser head 103, fig. 3) that forms a modified region (“modification layer,” para 0056) by irradiating an object (combined wafer T, fig. 3) with laser light (laser light from laser head 103, fig. 3), the laser processing device comprising: a support (chuck 100, fig. 3) configured to support the object (para 0060); a laser irradiation unit (laser head 103, fig. 3) configured to irradiate the object supported by the support with the laser light while forming a first converging point (bottom layers of M and M”, fig. 19A; annotated in fig. 19A below) and a second converging point (second from the bottom layers of M and M”, fig. 19A; annotated in fig. 19A below; “setting two condensing points from the laser head 103,” para 0141; fig. 4 shows how the condensing point or focal point of the laser beam L is applied to create the modified layers) located closer to an incident surface (top surface of W, fig. 19A) side of the laser light in the object than the first converging point (the top layers of M and M” are located closer to the top surface of W than the bottom layers of M and M”); and a processor (controller 40, fig. 1; para 0057) configured to control the laser irradiation unit (para 0205) and configured to move at least one of the support (“rotating the chuck 100,” para 0141) and the laser irradiation unit (para 0062) to relatively move the first converging point and the second converging point with respect to the object (para 0141); wherein the object includes a first portion located on an inner side of the object (portion of wafer W to the left of the modification layer M, fig. 19A) and a second portion located on an outer side of the first portion (portion of wafer W to the right of the crack C, fig. 19A) and including an outer edge of the object (right edge of the wafer W, fig. 19A), when viewed from a direction intersecting with the incident surface (viewed from the left end at the top of the surface of the wafer W, fig. 19A), in the object, when viewed from the direction intersecting with the incident surface, a first line (vertical crack C at the modification layer M, fig. 19A) annularly extending on a boundary (modification layer M, fig. 19A) between the first portion and the second portion (“the modification layer M having an annular shape is formed in the processing target wafer W,” para 0062; modification layer M, fig. 5) and a second line (vertical lines at the split modification layers M”, fig. 19A), the processor is configured to perform (para 0057): first processing (processing of modification layer M, figs. 5 and 19A) of controlling the laser irradiation unit to irradiate the object with the laser light (para 0062) while relatively moving the first converging point (bottom layer of M, fig. 19A) and the second converging point (second from the bottom layer of M, fig. 19A) along the first line (crack C, fig. 19A), and second processing (processing of split modification layers M”, fig. 19A) of controlling the laser irradiation unit to irradiate the object with the laser light (“while rotating the chuck 100, by setting two condensing points from the laser head 103,” para 0141) while relatively moving the first converging point (bottom layer of M”, fig. 19A) and the second converging point (second from the bottom layer of M”, fig. 19A) along the second line (vertical lines at the split modification layers M”, fig. 19A). Tanoue, figs. 3 and 19A (annotated) PNG media_image1.png 564 690 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 609 650 media_image2.png Greyscale In this embodiment, Tanoue does not explicitly disclose branching the laser light into a first laser light and a second laser light; a first converging point of the first laser light and a second converging point of the second laser light; a second line extending from the outer edge of the object to the inner side of the object in the second portion and reaching the boundary are set; where a distance between the first converging point and the second converging point in a direction along the first line is set to a first distance; where a distance between the first converging point and the second converging point in a direction along the second line is set to a second distance smaller than the first distance, the first distance and the second distance extend in a direction along the incident surface, and the first distance is greater than 0, and the first converging point of the first laser light and the second converging point of the second laser light are formed simultaneously by branching a single beam of the laser light. However, in a different embodiment, Tanoue teaches a second line the extending from the outer edge of the object to the inner side of the object (in the spiral pattern for M” in fig. 18, the lines for M” extend from the outer edge to the modification layer M) in the second portion (portion of wafer W to the right of the modification layer M, fig. 18) and reaching the boundary (modification layer M, fig. 18) are set (para 0140). Tanoue, fig. 18 PNG media_image3.png 905 818 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 embodiment of fig. 19A, to include, a second line extending from the outer edge of the object to the inner side of the object in the second portion and reaching the boundary are set, in view of the teachings of the embodiment of fig. 18, by having the split modification layers M”, as taught in fig. 19A, zigzag to form a spiral shape, as taught in fig. 18, in order to continuously form the split modification layers using a spiral shape, reducing the amount of time required for processing (paras 0139-0140). Tanoue does not explicitly disclose branching the laser light into a first laser light and a second laser light; a first converging point of the first laser light and a second converging point of the second laser light; where a distance between the first converging point and the second converging point in a direction along the first line is set to a first distance; where a distance between the first converging point and the second converging point in a direction along the second line is set to a second distance smaller than the first distance, the first distance and the second distance extend in a direction along the incident surface, and the first distance is greater than 0, and the first converging point of the first laser light and the second converging point of the second laser light are formed simultaneously by branching a single beam of the laser light. However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing, Sato teaches branching the laser light (LB1 and LB2, fig. 2) into a first laser light and a second laser light; a first converging point (focusing point 12, fig. 2; para 0027; annotated in fig. 2 below) of the first laser light (LB2, fig. 2) and a second converging point (focusing point 11, fig. 2; annotated in fig. 2 below) of the second laser light (LB1, fig. 2); where a distance (distance along x-axis, fig. 2) between the first converging point and the second converging point in a direction along the first line is set to a first distance (in fig. 5, “the first modified region formation step and the second modified region formation step are performed alternately,” para 0030; construed such that when the modified regions are formed alternately as shown in fig. 5, then there is a distance along the x-axis between points 11 and 12 in fig. 2); where a distance between the first converging point and the second converging point in a direction along the second line is set to a second distance smaller than the first distance (in fig. 4, “the first modified region formation step and the second modified region formation step can be performed simultaneously,” para 0029; construed such that when the modified regions are formed simultaneously as shown in fig. 4, then there is no distance along the x-axis between points 11 and 12 in fig. 2), the first distance and the second distance extend in a direction (horizontal direction along the x-axis, fig. 2) along the incident surface, and the first distance is greater than 0 (“Let time t be, for example, 100 to 500 [μsec],” para 0030; “moving the holding means 10 in the X-axis direction,” para 0027; according to fig. 5, the distance between points 11 and 12 will be the speed of the holding means 10 times the time t, which is construed as being a distance greater than 0) and the first converging point of the first laser light and the second converging point of the second laser light are formed simultaneously (in fig. 4, beams LB1 and LB2 are simultaneous). Sato, fig. 2 (annotated) and figs. 4-5 PNG media_image4.png 643 662 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 270 620 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 314 638 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 Tanoue, in view of the teachings of Sato, by alternately forming the modified regions, as taught by Sato in fig. 5, when forming the modification layer M, as taught by Tanoue in fig. 19A, and by simultaneously forming the modified regions, as taught by Sato in fig. 4, when forming the split modification layers M”, as taught by Tanoue in fig. 19A, in order to keep the modification layer M from suffering thermal damage by alternately forming the modified regions but to cause the split modification layers M” to receive thermal damage, causing the peripheral portion to split into multiple pieces such that the peripheral portion can be peeled off, so that the crack C along the modification layer M is formed in a straight line with few irregularities (Sato, paras 0029-0030; Tanoue, paras 0076 and 0137; Tanoue teaches forming the M1-M4 “consecutively” in fig. 15A, para 0135 and forming the split modification layers M” “at the same time,” para 0141). Tanoue/Sato do not explicitly disclose the first converging point of the first laser light and the second converging point of the second laser light are formed simultaneously by branching a single beam of the laser light. However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing, Uekihara teaches the first converging point of the first laser light (position Q2, fig. 2) and the second converging point of the second laser light (position Q1, fig. 2) are formed simultaneously (“simultaneously focused,” para 0049) by branching a single beam of the laser light (laser light L branches into two positions, fig. 2 and para 0050). Uekihara, fig. 2 (annotated) PNG media_image7.png 588 687 media_image7.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 Tanoue/Sato, in view of the teachings of Uekihara, by using the arrangement with a spatial light modulator to split the laser beam, as taught in fig. 1 of Uekihara, in forming the modified regions, as taught by Tanoue and Sato, in order to use a spatial light modulator, because when the wafer is being cut, there is no means of checking whether the spatial light modulator that forms the modified region P2 is operating normally, but by detecting the power of the laser light and comparing the power with a threshold, it can be determined if the spatial light modulator is operating normally or abnormally, for the advantage of providing real-time feedback (Uekihara, paras 0007, 0065, and 0077). Regarding claim 2, the combination of fig. 19A in view of fig. 18, Sato, and Uekihara as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 2. Specifically, Tanoue’s fig. 18 teaches wherein the processor (controller 40, fig. 1) is configured to perform (para 0057) the second processing (split modification layers M”, fig. 18) a plurality of times (“two or more rounds,” para 0140) while changing a position of the first converging point and a position of the second converging point (the modification layers zigzag, fig. 18; para 0140) in the direction (axial direction, fig. 18) intersecting with the incident surface (top surface of W, construed as the depth direction going into and out of fig. 18) with respect to one of the second lines (vertical lines of M” in fig. 19A are in the depth direction, fig 18; the axial direction intersects with the depth direction, fig. 18). Regarding claim 3, the combination of fig. 19A in view of fig. 18, Sato, and Uekihara as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 3. Specifically, Tanoue’s fig. 18 teaches wherein the processor (controller 40, fig. 1) is configured to perform (para 0057) the n-th second processing (n is an integer of 1 or more) (“two or more rounds,” para 0140; construed as the first round, i.e., n=1), and is then configured to perform the m-th second processing (m is an integer more than n) (“two or more rounds,” para 0140; construed as the first round, i.e., m=2) in a state where at least one of the first converging point and the second converging point is located at a position (those positions of M” in the second round that are in the center of the spiral pattern, fig. 18) between the first converging point and the second converging point (those positions of M” in the first round that are at the edges of the spiral pattern, fig. 18) in a direction (axial direction, fig. 18) intersecting with the incident surface in the n-th second processing (top surface of W, construed as the depth direction going into and out of fig. 18; the axial direction intersects with the depth direction, fig. 18). Regarding claim 4, the combination of fig. 19A in view of fig. 18, Sato, and Uekihara as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 4. Specifically, Tanoue’s fig. 18 teaches wherein the control unit (controller 40, fig. 1) is configured to perform (para 0057) the n-th second processing (n is an integer of 1 or more) (“two or more rounds,” para 0140; construed as the first round, i.e., n=1), and is then configured to perform the (n+1)th second processing (“two or more rounds,” para 0140; construed as the second round). In this embodiment, Tanoue does not explicitly disclose where the first converging point is located closer to the incident surface side than the position of the first converging point in a direction intersecting with the incident surface in the n-th second processing. However, in a different embodiment, Tanoue teaches where the first converging point (bottom layer M4, fig. 15C) is located closer to the incident surface side than the position of the first converging point in a direction intersecting with the incident surface in the n-th second processing (the bottom layer M4 rises closer to the surface of the wafer W in a vertical direction, fig. 15C; para 0136). Tanoue, fig. 15C PNG media_image8.png 182 708 media_image8.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 18, to include, where the first converging point is located closer to the incident surface side than the position of the first converging point in a direction intersecting with the incident surface in the n-th second processing, in view of the teachings of the embodiment of fig. 15C, by having the bottom layer of the split modification layers M”, as taught in fig.18, rise to the surface of the wafer W, as taught in fig. 15C, in order to continuously form the split modification layers in both a spiral direction as a well as a vertical direction with a gradient, further reducing the amount of time required for processing in comparison to the embodiment where the modification layers are flat and there is no vertical gradient (Tanoue, para 0136). Regarding claim 7, Tanoue teaches a laser processing method (“substrate processing method,” title) for forming a modified region (“modification layer,” para 0056) by irradiating an object (combined wafer T, fig. 3) with laser light (laser light from laser head 103, fig. 3), the laser processing method comprising: a laser irradiation step of irradiating the object with the laser light (laser light from laser head 103, fig. 3; para 0061) while forming a first converging point (bottom layers of M and M”, fig. 19A; annotated in fig. 19A above) and a second converging point (second from the bottom layers of M and M”, fig. 19A; annotated in fig. 19A above; “setting two condensing points from the laser head 103,” para 0141; fig. 4 shows how the condensing point or focal point of the laser beam L is applied to create the modified layers) located closer to an incident surface (top surface of W, fig. 19A) side of the laser light in the object than the first converging point (the top layers of M and M” are located closer to the top surface of W than the bottom layers of M and M”), wherein the object includes a first portion located on an inner side of the object (portion of wafer W to the left of the modification layer M, fig. 19A) and a second portion located on an outer side of the first portion (portion of wafer W to the right of the crack C, fig. 19A) and including an outer edge of the object (right edge of the wafer W, fig. 19A), when viewed from a direction intersecting with the incident surface (viewed from the left end at the top of the surface of the wafer W, fig. 19A), in the object, when viewed from the direction intersecting with the incident surface, a first line (vertical crack C at the modification layer M, fig. 19A) annularly extending on a boundary (modification layer M, fig. 19A) between the first portion and the second portion (“the modification layer M having an annular shape is formed in the processing target wafer W,” para 0062; modification layer M, fig. 5) and a second line (vertical lines at the split modification layers M”, fig. 19A), the laser irradiation step includes: a first irradiation step (processing of modification layer M, figs. 5 and 19A) of irradiating the object with the laser light (para 0062) while relatively moving the first converging point (bottom layer of M, fig. 19A) and the second converging point (second from the bottom layer of M, fig. 19A) along the first line (crack C, fig. 19A), and a second irradiation step (processing of split modification layers M”, fig. 19A) of irradiating the object with the laser light (“while rotating the chuck 100, by setting two condensing points from the laser head 103,” para 0141) while relatively moving the first converging point (bottom layer of M”, fig. 19A) and the second converging point (top layer of M”, fig. 19A) along the second line (vertical lines at the split modification layers M”, fig. 19A). In this embodiment, Tanoue does not explicitly disclose branching the laser light into a first laser light and a second laser light; a first converging point of the first laser light and a second converging point of the second laser light; a second line extending from the outer edge of the object to the inner side of the object in the second portion and reaching the boundary are set; where a distance between the first converging point and the second converging point in a direction along the first line is set to a first distance; where a distance between the first converging point and the second converging point in a direction along the second line is set to a second distance smaller than the first distance, the first distance and the second distance extend in a direction along the incident surface, and the first distance is greater than 0, and the first converging point of the first laser light and the second converging point of the second laser light are formed simultaneously by branching a single beam of the laser light. However, in a different embodiment, Tanoue teaches a second line the extending from the outer edge of the object to the inner side of the object (in the spiral pattern for M” in fig. 18, the lines for M” extend from the outer edge to the modification layer M) in the second portion (portion of wafer W to the right of the modification layer M, fig. 18) and reaching the boundary (modification layer M, fig. 18) are set (para 0140). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 19A, to include, a second line extending from the outer edge of the object to the inner side of the object in the second portion and reaching the boundary are set, in view of the teachings of the embodiment of fig. 18, by having the split modification layers M”, as taught in fig. 19A, zigzag to form a spiral shape, as taught in fig. 18, in order to continuously form the split modification layers using a spiral shape, reducing the amount of time required for processing (paras 0139-0140). Tanoue does not explicitly disclose branching the laser light into a first laser light and a second laser light; a first converging point of the first laser light and a second converging point of the second laser light; where a distance between the first converging point and the second converging point in a direction along the first line is set to a first distance; where a distance between the first converging point and the second converging point in a direction along the second line is set to a second distance smaller than the first distance, the first distance and the second distance extend in a direction along the incident surface, and the first distance is greater than 0, and the first converging point of the first laser light and the second converging point of the second laser light are formed simultaneously by branching a single beam of the laser light. However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing, Sato teaches branching the laser light (LB1 and LB2, fig. 2) into a first laser light and a second laser light; a first converging point (focusing point 12, fig. 2; para 0027; annotated in fig. 2 below) of the first laser light (LB2, fig. 2) and a second converging point (focusing point 11, fig. 2; annotated in fig. 2 below) of the second laser light (LB1, fig. 2); where a distance (distance along x-axis, fig. 2) between the first converging point and the second converging point in a direction along the first line is set to a first distance (in fig. 5, “the first modified region formation step and the second modified region formation step are performed alternately,” para 0030; construed such that when the modified regions are formed alternately as shown in fig. 5, then there is a distance along the x-axis between points 11 and 12 in fig. 2); where a distance between the first converging point and the second converging point in a direction along the second line is set to a second distance smaller than the first distance (in fig. 4, “the first modified region formation step and the second modified region formation step can be performed simultaneously,” para 0029; construed such that when the modified regions are formed simultaneously as shown in fig. 4, then there is no distance along the x-axis between points 11 and 12 in fig. 2), the first distance and the second distance extend in a direction (horizontal direction along the x-axis, fig. 2) along the incident surface, and the first distance is greater than 0 (“Let time t be, for example, 100 to 500 [μsec],” para 0030; “moving the holding means 10 in the X-axis direction,” para 0027; according to fig. 5, the distance between points 11 and 12 will be the speed of the holding means 10 times the time t, which is construed as being a distance greater than 0) and the first converging point of the first laser light and the second converging point of the second laser light are formed simultaneously (in fig. 4, beams LB1 and LB2 are simultaneous).. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanoue, in view of the teachings of Sato, by alternately forming the modified regions, as taught by Sato in fig. 5, when forming the modification layer M, as taught by Tanoue in fig. 19A, and by simultaneously forming the modified regions, as taught by Sato in fig. 4, when forming the split modification layers M”, as taught by Tanoue in fig. 19A, in order to keep the modification layer M from suffering thermal damage by alternately forming the modified regions but to cause the split modification layers M” to receive thermal damage, causing the peripheral portion to split into multiple pieces such that the peripheral portion can be peeled off, so that the crack C along the modification layer M is formed in a straight line with few irregularities (Sato, paras 0029-0030; Tanoue, paras 0076 and 0137; Tanoue teaches forming the M1-M4 “consecutively” in fig. 15A, para 0135 and forming the split modification layers M” “at the same time,” para 0141). Tanoue/Sato do not explicitly disclose the first converging point of the first laser light and the second converging point of the second laser light are formed simultaneously by branching a single beam of the laser light. However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing, Uekihara teaches the first converging point of the first laser light (position Q2, fig. 2) and the second converging point of the second laser light (position Q1, fig. 2) are formed simultaneously (“simultaneously focused,” para 0049) by branching a single beam of the laser light (laser light L branches into two positions, fig. 2 and 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 Tanoue/Sato, in view of the teachings of Uekihara, by using the arrangement with a spatial light modulator to split the laser beam, as taught in fig. 1 of Uekihara, in forming the modified regions, as taught by Tanoue and Sato, in order to use a spatial light modulator, because when the wafer is being cut, there is no means of checking whether the spatial light modulator that forms the modified region P2 is operating normally, but by detecting the power of the laser light and comparing the power with a threshold, it can be determined if the spatial light modulator is operating normally or abnormally, for the advantage of providing real-time feedback (Uekihara, paras 0007, 0065, and 0077). Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanoue (US-20210039203-A1, effective filing date of 1 March 2019) in view of Sato et al. (JP-2015062943-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Uekihara et al. (JP-2017064747-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nishiwaki et al. (US-20220226935-A1, effective filing date of 28 June 2019). Regarding claim 5, Tanoue the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: an input unit configured to receive an input; and a display unit configured to display information, wherein the input unit is configured to receive an input of the first distance before the first processing, and the processor is configured to display, on the display unit, information for urging confirmation of a first input value in a case where the first input value is less than a first threshold value before the first processing, the first input value being an input value of the first distance received by the input unit, and the processor is configured to perform the first processing in a case where the first input value is equal to or more than the first threshold value. However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing, Nishiwaki teaches further comprising: an input unit (input unit 14, fig. 1) configured to receive an input (para 0037); and a display unit (display unit 13, fig. 1) configured to display information (para 0037), wherein the input unit is configured to receive an input (para 0037; input unit is used to generate the machine condition, fig. 1) of the first distance (“focus position,” para 0033; step S1, fig. 3) before the first processing (step S2, fig. 3), and the processor (control unit 102, fig. 1) is configured to display, on the display unit, information for urging confirmation of a first input value (“the test machining condition generation unit 9 displays a machining condition to be used in the next test machining on the display unit 13, and receives, from the user, an input indicating that the user does not wish machining,” para 0056; construed as displaying the focus position to urge confirmation from a user; fig. 9 is a copy of the information and shows how confirmation is obtained from the user). Nishiwaki, fig. 9 PNG media_image9.png 1162 730 media_image9.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 Tanoue, in view of the teachings of Nishiwaki, by using an input device and a display device, as taught by Nishiwaki, to provide an input and output to the controller, as taught by Tanoue, in order to receive input and display information generated in the control unit to a user, for the advantage of providing more control to a user, allowing the user to provide data entry and to indicate whether or not an intended machining condition should be used (Nishiwaki, paras 0037 and 0056). Tanoue/Nishiwaki do not explicitly disclose where the first input value is less than a first threshold value before the first processing, the first input value being an input value of the first distance received by the input unit, and the processor is configured to perform the first processing in a case where the first input value is equal to or more than the first threshold value. However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing, Uekihara teaches where the first input value is less than a first threshold value before the first processing, the first input value being an input value of the first distance received by the input unit (“On the other hand, if the change in power of the laser light L is less than the threshold value, it is determined that the operating state of the spatial light modulator 28 is abnormal,” para 0065; “If the control unit 60 determines in step S18 that the operating state of the spatial light modulator 28 is abnormal, it notifies the user of the operating state of the spatial light modulator 28 via notification means,” para 0066; Uekihara teaches measuring the power to control the position of the modified regions P1 and P2, which are construed as focal distances, fig. 3), and the processor (control unit 60, fig. 1) is configured to perform the first processing in a case where the first input value is equal to or more than the first threshold value (“If the change in power of the laser light L is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it is determined that the spatial light modulator 28 is operating normally,” para 0065). Uekihara, fig. 3 PNG media_image10.png 290 466 media_image10.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 Tanoue/Nishiwaki, in view of the teachings of Uekihara, by using a threshold value, as taught by Uekihara, that was provided as an input and displayed as an output, as taught by Nishiwaki, for the focal points of the bottom layers of M and M”, as taught by Tanoue, in order to precisely control the locations of the modified region P2, because when the wafer is being cut, there is no means of checking whether the spatial light modulator that forms the modified region P2 is operating normally, but by detecting the power of the laser light and comparing the power with a threshold, it can be determined if the spatial light modulator is operating normally or abnormally (Uekihara, paras 0007 and 0065). Regarding claim 6, Tanoue teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the input unit is configured to receive an input of the second distance before the second processing, and the processor is configured to display, on the display unit, information for urging confirmation of a second input value in a case where the second input value is more than a second threshold value before the second processing, the second input value being an input value of the second distance received by the input unit, and the processor is configured to perform the second processing in a case where the second input value is equal to or less than the second threshold value. However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing, Nishiwaki a teaches wherein the input unit (input unit 14, fig. 1) is configured to receive an input (para 0037; input unit is used to generate the machine condition, fig. 1) of the second distance (“focus position,” para 0033; step S1, fig. 3) before the second processing (step S2, fig. 3), and the processor (control unit 102, fig. 1) is configured to display, on the display unit, information for urging confirmation of a second input value (“the test machining condition generation unit 9 displays a machining condition to be used in the next test machining on the display unit 13, and receives, from the user, an input indicating that the user does not wish machining,” para 0056; construed displaying the focus position to urge confirmation from a user; fig. 9 is a copy of the display and shows how confirmation is obtained from the user). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanoue, in view of the teachings of Nishiwaki, by using an input device and a display device, as taught by Nishiwaki, to provide an input and output to the controller, as taught by Tanoue, in order to receive input and display information generated in the control unit to a user, for the advantage of providing more control to a user, allowing the user to provide data entry and to indicate whether or not an intended machining condition should be used (Nishiwaki, paras 0037 and 0056). Tanoue/Nishiwaki do not explicitly disclose where the second input value is more than a second threshold value before the second processing, the second input value being an input value of the second distance received by the input unit, and the processor is configured to perform the second processing in a case where the second input value is equal to or less than the second threshold value. However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing, Uekihara teaches where the second input value is more than a second threshold value before the second processing, the second input value being an input value of the second distance received by the input unit (“On the other hand, if the change in power of the laser light L is less than the threshold value, it is determined that the operating state of the spatial light modulator 28 is abnormal,” para 0065; construed such that if the control unit 60 can be configured to compare a power value to be less than a threshold value to determine an abnormal condition, the control unit 60 is also capable of being configured to compare a power value to be greater than a threshold value), and the processor (control unit 60, fig. 1) is configured to perform the second processing in a case where the second input value is equal to or less than the second threshold value (“If the change in power of the laser light L is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it is determined that the spatial light modulator 28 is operating normally,” para 0065; construed such that if the control unit 60 can be configured to compare a power value to be greater than a threshold value to determine a normal condition, the control unit 60 is also capable of being configured to compare a power value to be less than a threshold value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanoue/Nishiwaki, in view of the teachings of Uekihara, by using a threshold value, as taught by Uekihara, that was provided as an input and displayed as an output, as taught by Nishiwaki, for the focal points of the second from the bottom layer of M and M”, as taught by Tanoue, in order to precisely control the locations of the modified regions P1, because when the wafer is being cut, there is no means of checking whether the spatial light modulator that forms the modified regions P1 is operating normally, but by detecting the power of the laser light and comparing the power with a threshold, it can be determined if the spatial light modulator is operating normally or abnormally (Uekihara, paras 0007 and 0065). Response to Argument Applicant' s arguments filed 4 September 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Rejections under 35 USC §§ 103 Page 8 of the arguments refers Sato (JP-2015062943-A) and states the following: “However, Sato, to the extent understood, merely discloses whether the first laser beam LB1 and the second laser beam LB2 are applied simultaneously or alternately in time, and cannot be acknowledged as directly disclosing that the distance between a first converging point and a second converging point is made greater than 0, as recited in the present claims.” The examiner agrees that if the “the first laser beam LB1 and the second laser beam LB2 are applied simultaneously,” then this distance will be zero, i.e., not greater than zero. However, in the rejection above, the claimed “second distance” is used for when the first laser beam and the second beam are simultaneous. Claim 1 does not require that the “second distance is greater than 0.” Instead, Claim 1 recites: “the first distance is greater than 0.” In the rejection above, the claimed “first distance” correlates with Sato’s teaching regarding the beams being “alternately” applied. This alternating between the beams is shown in fig. 5. This “first distance” is the distance between the focusing points 11 and 12 along the x-axis, when the workpiece is moving along the x-axis. Because the beams are alternated in fig. 5, then there is a distance along the x-axis between focusing points 11 and 12 as the workpiece moves along the x-axis. Thus, the examiner asserts that if the beams are “applied…alternately in time” then the distance (the claimed “first distance”) must be “greater than 0.” In response to applicant's argument on page 8 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In particular, the rejection was based on what Sato teaches, and Sato’s disclosure was published prior to the effective filing date of the Instant Application. Furthermore, the paragraphs that are relied upon from the Applicant’s Specification for supposed hindsight (paragraphs 0007-0011) are different from the simultaneous or alternating beams that are taught in figs. 4-5 of Sato. The examiner agrees with the following statements on page 9 of the arguments: “Further, since Sato utilizes two light sources (i.e., first laser beam generating means 50 (first laser oscillator 51) and second laser beam generating means 60 (second laser oscillator 52)), strictly speaking, Sato fails to disclose ‘splitting a laser beam into a first laser beam and a second laser beam.’” However, this argument is now moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Tanoue and Sato combined with Uekihara. 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 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