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 and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 26 December 2025. Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-20 are pending in the instant application where claims 1 and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 6 and 10 have been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 07 October 2025 and are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (remarks page 1 “Claim Interpretation” section) with respect to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been considered, but the interpretation is maintained. The structural modifiers which precede the generic placeholders “part” are not sufficient for the limitations to not be treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as argued by applicant. For example regarding the limitation “an irradiation part configured to irradiate a wafer with a laser beam” the irradiation part may be a lens, prism, mirror, laser, etc. Similarly regarding an “input part configured to receive an input of information”, the input part may be a keyboard, mouse, personal computer, smartphone, etc.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. This is in regards to arguments directed to the limitation “the estimation processing result including predicted information of a modified region of the wafer expected to result from irradiation of the wafer”.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations “irradiation part”, “imaging part”, “input part”, “control part”, and “display part” which use the generic placeholder “part” that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Accordingly, the limitation “irradiation part” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a “laser irradiation unit, [which] includes a light source 31 … which outputs a laser beam L” (Applicant’s PGPub US 2023/0109456 A1 (“Takeshi”) paragraphs [0059] and [0073]), and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “imaging part” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to “a light detection part 44…configured of an InGaAs camera, [or] other imaging means [such as] a transmission type confocal microscope” (Takeshi paragraph [0080]), and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “input part” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to “a display 150 [which] has a function as an input part for receiving an input of information” (Takeshi paragraph [0059]), and equivalents thereof. Figs 13-15 exemplify the display 150 as a setting screen (user input reception screen), functioning as an “input part” (Takeshi paragraph [0095]).
The limitation “control part” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to “a computer device including a processor, a memory, a storage, a communication device, and the like” (Takeshi paragraph [0067]), and equivalents thereof.
Accordingly, the limitation “display part” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to “a display 150” (Takeshi paragraph [0059]), and equivalents thereof. Figs 13-15 exemplify the display 150 as a setting screen (user input reception screen).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017064746 A by Hyakumura Kazuji (herein after “Hyakumura”) in view of JP 2009117776 A by Tokumitsu Naoya et al. (herein after “Tokumitsu”), and further in view of JP 2016013571 A by Fukuyama Satoshi et al. (herein after “Satoshi”).
Examiner notes the references Hyakumura and Tokumitsu were cited in the IDS filed 03 October 2022.
Regarding claim 1, Hyakumura discloses an inspection device comprising:
an irradiation part configured to irradiate a wafer with a laser beam (Hyakumura [0028]; a laser head 20 [irradiation part] is configured to irradiate a wafer W with processing laser light L [laser beam]),
an imaging part configured to take an image of the wafer (Hyakumura [0042]; infrared camera 50 serves as an imaging means which captures an image of the wafer),
and a control part (Hyakumura [0024]; laser processing apparatus 1 comprised of control unit 60),
wherein the control part is configured to determine a processing condition including an irradiation condition of the laser beam by the irradiation part based on the wafer processing information (Hyakumura [0047]; control unit 60 controls operation of spatial light modulator 28 for modulating the laser light L [laser beam]; hologram pattern [irradiation condition – also the processing condition since the “processing condition includ[es] an irradiation condition”] is formed by the spatial light modulator to focus light at two depths from the wafer being illuminated; pattern is derived based on position on wafer, wavelength of laser light L, and refractive indices of condenser lens 38 and wafer W [all those characteristics are considered wafer processing information], and pattern is stored in control unit [determines a processing condition]), to control the irradiation part so that the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam according to the determined processing condition, (Hyakumura [0056]; laser light L incident on spatial light modulator 28 is modulated in accordance to the predetermined hologram pattern [irradiated according to the determined processing condition]), to acquire a laser processing result of the wafer due to the irradiation of the laser beam by controlling the imaging part to take an image of the wafer, and to evaluate the processing condition based on the laser processing result (Hyakumura [0077]; determination process performed by the control unit 60, determining whether images are taken at the proper wafer depth position (referred to as modified regions P1, P2 which are imaged – see [0076]); the determination of whether proper depth position has been obtained here is the laser processing result; [0080] discloses that the results of confirmation or measurement in the wafer processing confirmation process are fed back to the formation position of the modified region and the laser processing conditions to automatically correct the position at which the modified region is formed; the region at which the modified region is formed is dependent on the hologram pattern of the spatial light modulator, so the processing condition is evaluated based on the need for position correction based on the laser processing result),
wherein the inspection device further comprises a display part configured to display information (Hyakumura [0050] discloses a display device which displays an image [display information]),
wherein the control part is configured to further control the display part so that the determined processing condition is displayed (Hyakumura [0050] discloses a display device and may display the image captured by infrared camera 50, display program contents [i.e. the determined processing condition], messages, and the like; MPEP 2114 II. states that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art – in this case, since the display device of Hyakumura is capable of displaying information related to the wafer being inspected, the requirement that the determined processing condition is displayed does not make a contribution over Hyakumura),
wherein the control part derives an estimation processing result based on the processing condition and controls the display part so that an estimation processing result image that is an image of the estimation processing result is displayed (Hyakumura [0044] discloses monitoring via an infrared camera 50 measuring the formation of areas within a wafer being processed, and can also confirm or measure processing damage from wafer processing; [0078] the image captured by the camera 50 is used to access damage to the wafer; the image obtained by the infrared camera 50 in this context is an “estimation processing result”, and would be at least partially based on the hologram pattern used in processing the wafer (as disclosed above), since the image will contain a result of wafer processing).
Hyakumura is silent to an input part configured to receive an input of information, wherein the input part receives an input of wafer processing information including information of the wafer and a laser processing target for the wafer and the control part configured to determine a processing condition based on the wafer processing information received by the input unit.
However, Tokumitsu does address this limitation. Hyakumura and Tokumitsu are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of laser processing apparatus for inspection or processing of wafers.
Tokumitsu discloses “an input part configured to receive an input of information,
wherein the input part receives an input of wafer processing information including information of the wafer and a laser processing target for the wafer” (Tokumitsu [0008] discloses an operation panel (operation panel 30 [0026]) for inputting processing conditions, and an input area where input fields are arranged to accept input of numerical data; [0056] input area 83 accepts horizontal and vertical sizes corresponding to the workpiece, and [0061] inputting laser output, frequency, defocus amount, etc. [information of the laser itself]; while Hyakumura discloses an operation panel and a display device, the panel and display device were not explicitly disclosed as accepting inputs, whereas Tokumitsu provides that functionality; the wafer processing information used to inform the hologram pattern of Hyakumura would be user inputted to the input part of Tokumitsu),
and “the control part configured to determine a processing condition based on the wafer processing information received by the input unit” (Tokumitsu [0055] operation input area 83 on the operation panel 80 receive inputs and are under control of a microprocessor and a display control unit [equivalent to the control part of Hyakumura]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyakumura to incorporate an input part configured to receive an input of information, wherein the input part receives an input of wafer processing information including information of the wafer and a laser processing target for the wafer and the control part configured to determine a processing condition based on the wafer processing information received by the input unit as suggested by Tokumitsu for the advantage of reducing input errors in numerical data by incorporating an image drawing area to help users understand the contents of processing conditions (Tokumitsu [0011]).
Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu is silent to wherein the control part derives an estimation processing result before the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam by the irradiation part, and the estimation processing result includes predicted information of a modified region of the wafer expected to result from irradiation of the wafer with the laser beam by the irradiation part based on the processing condition.
However, Satoshi does address this limitation. Hyakumura, Tokumitsu, and Satoshi are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of semiconducting wafer inspection and processing.
Satoshi discloses “wherein the control part derives an estimation processing result before the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam by the irradiation part” (Satoshi [0093] discloses the laser processing method within where stress information [estimation processing result information, displayed in fig. 2] of the substrate W to be processed is obtained before the substrate is subjected to laser processing [estimation processing result is derived before the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam]), “and the estimation processing result includes predicted information of a modified region of the wafer expected to result from irradiation of the wafer with the laser beam by the irradiation part based on the processing condition” (Satoshi [0093] discloses that stress information of the substrate W is obtained by a stress measuring device 40, where the stress information is stored in a storage unit of the laser processing apparatus 200; [0105]-[0110] disclose examples where, based on the stress information measured on a wafer to be laser processed; “good substrate cutting was possible by changing the processing conditions depending on the stress” – in the example, tensile stress was large at outermost periphery and compressive stress was large at center of substrate - for stress information determined before processing, there is an inherent “prediction” of the response of the wafer based on said stress, demonstrated by the adjustment of laser strength before processing the different regions; this ensures optimal processing based on the measured stress, see [0027]; additionally, [0061]-[0062] discloses a link between processing conditions and the stress information [i.e. processing conditions (focal depth, modulation, etc.) are set based on stress information obtained before the wafer is irradiated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyakumura in view of Tokumitsu to incorporate wherein the control part derives an estimation processing result before the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam by the irradiation part, and the estimation processing result includes predicted information of a modified region of the wafer expected to result from irradiation of the wafer with the laser beam by the irradiation part based on the processing condition as suggested by Satoshi for the advantage of performing laser processing such as cutting of a substrate under optimal processing conditions according to the stress of the substrate, achieving highly accurate laser processing (Satoshi [0027]) and highly efficient laser processing (Satoshi [0095]).
Regarding claim 2, Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Satoshi discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, and Hyakumura further teaches the device wherein the control part determines the processing condition corresponding to the wafer processing information by referring to a database in which the processing condition [is] stored (Hyakumura [0047]; as with claim 1 above, the control unit 60 stores wafer processing information (position on wafer, wavelength of laser light L, etc.) to inform the specific hologram pattern generated [irradiation condition]; here the irradiation condition serves as the processing condition (since the processing condition includes an irradiation condition), are stored within the control unit; the location of the storage within the control unit is considered a database).
Hyakumura is silent to the inspection device according to claim 1 wherein the control part determines the processing condition corresponding to the wafer processing information received through the input part by referring to a database in which the wafer processing information and the processing condition are stored in association with each other.
However, Tokumitsu does address these limitations.
Tokumitsu discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, “wherein the control part determines the processing condition corresponding to the wafer processing information received through the input part by referring to a database in which the wafer processing information and the processing condition are stored in association with each other” (Tokumitsu [0026] control means 40 [control part] comprised of microprocessor 41 [database] reads out display information required for the operation panel 30 from the memory unit 42 and the operation panel display screen memory unit 43, i.e. operation panel information has been stored in the memory units 42 and 43 – this includes wafer processing information input to generate the hologram pattern disclosed in Hyakumura; since this wafer processing information of Tokumitsu and processing condition of Hyakumura are stored in the control means, they are stored in association with each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyakumura to incorporate wherein the control part determines the processing condition corresponding to the wafer processing information received through the input part by referring to a database in which the wafer processing information and the processing condition are stored in association with each other as suggested by Tokumitsu for the advantage of further reducing errors in numerical data input through a means of storage and ability to re-check numerical data entries to confirm no errors were made during input.
Regarding claim 3, Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Satoshi discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, and Hyakumura further teaches the device wherein the control part evaluates the processing condition based on the laser processing result and the wafer processing information (as in claim 1, Hyakumura [0077]; determination process performed by the control unit 60, determining whether images are taken at the proper wafer depth position (referred to as modified regions P1, P2 which are imaged – see [0076]); the determination of whether proper depth position has been obtained is the laser processing result; Hyakumura [0080] discloses the results of confirmation or measurement in the wafer processing confirmation process are fed back to the formation position of the modified region and the laser processing conditions to automatically correct the position at which the modified region is formed; the region at which the modified region is formed is dependent on the hologram pattern of the spatial light modulator, so the processing condition is evaluated based on the need for position correction based on the laser processing result).
Regarding claim 4, Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Satoshi discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, and Hyakumura further teaches the device wherein the control part is configured to further correct the processing condition based on the laser processing result when it is evaluated that the processing condition is not appropriate (Hyakumura [0080] discloses the results of confirmation or measurement in the wafer processing confirmation process are fed back to the formation position of the modified region and the laser processing conditions to automatically correct the position at which the modified region is formed – this correction would occur if a change is needed (i.e. if the processing condition is not appropriate); Hyakumura discloses the hologram pattern as the processing condition, while the hologram pattern itself is not explicitly disclosed to be corrected, the position at which the modified region is formed informs the pattern needed to successfully focus light at two depths in the wafer (modified regions); since the position at which the modified region is corrected, the hologram pattern [processing condition] is therefore also corrected).
Regarding claim 11, Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Satoshi discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, and Hyakumura further teaches the device wherein the input part receives an input of first correction information related to correction of a processing position in the estimation processing result image in a state in which the estimation processing result image is displayed by the display part, and
the control part corrects the estimation processing result based on the first correction information and corrects the processing condition so that the corrected estimation processing result is obtained (Hyakumura [0080] and claim 4 discloses the process of automatically correcting the position at which the modified region is formed – this correction is performed based on the images captured by infrared camera 50 [the estimation processing result of claim 1], and is shown on the display section [again, see claim 1]; [0079] discloses that multiple images are captured by the infrared camera 50 i.e. multiple estimated processing results are obtained, corresponding to images taken by the infrared camera; any autocorrection which results from a single estimation processing result will be reflected in the next obtained estimation processing result, yielding a corrected estimation processing result as a subsequent image; both the correcting of the modified region position and the subsequent corrected estimation processing result are done by the control unit of Hyakumura).
Regarding claim 12, Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Satoshi discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, and Hyakumura further teaches the device wherein the input part receives an input of processing condition correction information related to correction of the processing condition in a state in which the processing condition is displayed by the display part, and
the control part corrects the processing condition based on the processing condition correction information and corrects the estimation processing result based on the corrected processing condition (in keeping with the identification of the processing condition as the pattern projected onto the wafer [illumination condition of claim 1], Hyakumura [0082] discloses the use of a correction ring to adjust the aberration of the laser light [illumination light], i.e. correcting the processing condition; since the display of Hyakumura is capable of displaying information, so the processing condition may be corrected while displayed on the display part; the image estimated processing result from claim 10 outlines the process by which the estimation processing result would be corrected; the next estimation processing result obtained would be, in part, based on the laser corrected by the correction ring).
Regarding claim 13, Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Satoshi discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, and Hyakumura further teaches the device wherein the control part controls the display part so that the laser processing result is displayed (Hyakumura [0050] discloses a display device and may display the image captured by infrared camera 50, display program contents [i.e. the determined processing condition], messages, and the like; MPEP 2114 II. states that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art – in this case, since the display device of Hyakumura is capable of displaying information related to the wafer being inspected, the requirement that the laser processing result is displayed does not make a contribution over Hyakumura).
Regarding claim 14, Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Satoshi discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, and Hyakumura further teaches the device wherein the control part controls the display part so that a message that prompts correction is displayed when the wafer processing information received through the input part is not appropriate (Hyakumura [0050] discloses a display device and may display the image captured by infrared camera 50, display program contents [i.e. the determined processing condition], messages, and the like; additionally, Hyakumura is capable of correcting aspects of the laser inspection apparatus (see claim 1); MPEP 2114 II. states that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art – in this case, since the display device Hyakumura is capable of displaying information related to the wafer being inspected, the requirement that the message prompts correction when wafer processing information received is not appropriate does not make a contribution over Hyakumura).
Regarding claim 15, Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Tanaka discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, and Hyakumura further teaches the device wherein the wafer processing information includes information that indicates a finish thickness of the wafer (Hyakumura [0067] discloses a final thickness of the wafer containing the modified regions under investigation grinded to the predetermined final thickness by a grinding device; since the thickness is predetermined it is considered as wafer processing information and is used to “process the wafer”).
Regarding claim 16, Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Satoshi discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, and Hyakumura further teaches the device wherein the wafer processing information includes crack reach information that indicates whether a crack extending from a modified region formed when the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam reaches or does not reach a front surface of the wafer, and information that indicates an expected extension amount of the crack due to grinding after the irradiation of the laser beam when the crack reach information indicates that the crack do not reach the surface of the wafer (Hyakumura [0058] discloses cracks K1 and K2 which are formed when modified regions P1 and P2 are formed and extend from the modified regions respectively; [0062] discloses that the cracks K1 and K2 connect due to the impact [when the laser is irradiated with the laser beam] when the modified region P1 is formed; the crack extends from modified region P2 toward the front side of the wafer W; [0063] the extension of the crack is performed to a desired position between the target surface and front surface; [0069] wafer W is cut from cracks that extend to the front surface side of the wafer as starting points; [0070] wafer processing confirmation process is performed in real time to confirm the formation position of the modified area formed inside the wafer and any processing damage – therefore, information exists indicating whether the crack extends to the front surface or not, since the wafer processing confirmation process is performed in real time; [0085] discloses two lengths associated with the crack, the total crack length, and the bottom end length of the crack; since the length of the crack is predetermined, an “expected extension” amount of the crack is comprised with the predetermined crack length, the total crack length, and the bottom end crack length; i.e. if the total crack length is not enough to reach the surface, the extension is the difference between the predetermined crack length and total crack length; the lengths of the cracks disclosed herein are considered additional wafer processing information; additionally, MPEP 2114 II. states that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art – in this case, since Hyakumura discloses that wafer processing information exists within the reference, the specification that the wafer processing information include crack reach information indicating a status of a crack within the wafer does not make a contribution over Hyakumura, since the device of Hyakumura is capable of having that or any specific wafer processing information).
Regarding claim 17, Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Satoshi discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, and Hyakumura further teaches the device wherein the wafer processing information includes finish cross section information that indicates whether or not a modified region formed when the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam appears on the finish cross section of the wafer after the laser processing and grinding processing are completed (MPEP 2114 II. states that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art – in this case, since Hyakumura discloses that wafer processing information exists within the reference, the specification that the wafer processing information includes specific cross section information to indicate whether or not a modified region has been formed does not make a contribution over Hyakumura, since the device of Hyakumura is capable of having that or any specific wafer processing information).
Regarding claim 18, Hyakumura discloses an inspection device comprising:
an irradiation part configured to irradiate a wafer with a laser beam (Hyakumura [0028]; a laser head 20 [irradiation part] is configured to irradiate a wafer W with processing laser light L [laser beam]),
a control part ((Hyakumura [0024]; laser processing apparatus 1 comprised of control unit 60),
and the control part is configured to:
derive an estimation processing result based on the wafer processing information (Hyakumura [0046]; a control unit is composed of a CPU, memory, input/output circuit unit, etc. and controls the operation of the laser processing device; [0044] discloses that the infrared camera 50 is configured to image the wafer, measuring the formation of areas within a wafer being processed, and can also confirm or measure processing damage from wafer processing; the image obtained by the infrared camera 50 in this context is an “estimation processing result; as to the “wafer processing information” Hyakumura [0047] discloses the control unit operating a spatial light modulator 28 which outputs a hologram pattern based on the position on wafer, wavelength of laser light L, and refractive indices of condenser lens 38 and wafer W [all considered wafer processing information, on which estimation processing result is based]), and
determine a processing condition including an irradiation condition of the laser beam by the irradiation part based on the estimation processing result (Hyakumura [0047] the hologram pattern [is the irradiation condition – also is the processing condition since the “processing condition includ[es] an irradiation condition”] is formed by the spatial light modulator to focus light at two depths in the wafer being illuminated; [0047] since the hologram pattern is derived in advance based on determined position where the modified region is to be formed, and the estimation processing result is used to correct the position where modified region is formed, the hologram pattern is based on the location of the modified region, as given by the estimation processing result).
Hyakumura is silent to an input part configured to receive an input of information, wherein the input part receives an input of wafer processing information including information of the wafer and a laser processing target for the wafer, , and the control part configured to receive by the input unit.
However, Tokumitsu does address this limitation. Hyakumura and Tokumitsu are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of laser processing apparatus for inspection or processing of wafers.
Tokumitsu discloses “an input part configured to receive an input of information,
wherein the input part receives an input of wafer processing information including information of the wafer and a laser processing target for the wafer” (Tokumitsu [0008] discloses an operation panel (operation panel 30 [0026]) for inputting processing conditions, and an input area where input fields are arranged to accept input of numerical data; [0056] input area 83 accepts horizontal and vertical sizes corresponding to the workpiece, and [0061] inputting laser output, frequency, defocus amount, etc. [information of the laser itself]; while Hyakumura discloses an operation panel and a display device, the panel and display device were not explicitly disclosed as accepting inputs, whereas Tokumitsu provides that functionality; the wafer processing information used to inform the hologram pattern of Hyakumura would be user inputted to the input part of Tokumitsu),
and “the control part configured to receive by the input unit” (Tokumitsu [0055] operation input area 83 on the operation panel 80 receive inputs and are under control of a microprocessor and a display control unit [equivalent to the control part of Hyakumura]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyakumura to incorporate an input part configured to receive an input of information, wherein the input part receives an input of wafer processing information including information of the wafer and a laser processing target for the wafer, and the control part configured to receive by the input unit as suggested by Tokumitsu for the advantage of reducing input errors in numerical data by incorporating an image drawing area to help users understand the contents of processing conditions (Tokumitsu [0011]).
Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu is silent to wherein the control part is configured to: derive an estimation processing result before the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam by the irradiation part, and the estimation processing result including predicted information of a modified region of the wafer expected to result from irradiation of the wafer with the laser beam by the irradiation part based on the wafer processing information.
However, Satoshi does address this limitation. Hyakumura, Tokumitsu, and Satoshi are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of semiconducting wafer inspection and processing.
Satoshi discloses “wherein the control part derives an estimation processing result before the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam by the irradiation part” (Satoshi [0093] discloses the laser processing method within where stress information [estimation processing result information, displayed in fig. 2] of the substrate W to be processed is obtained before the substrate is subjected to laser processing [estimation processing result is derived before the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam]), “and the estimation processing result including predicted information of a modified region of the wafer expected to result from irradiation of the wafer with the laser beam by the irradiation part based on the processing condition” (Satoshi [0093] discloses that stress information of the substrate W is obtained by a stress measuring device 40, where the stress information is stored in a storage unit of the laser processing apparatus 200; [0105]-[0110] disclose examples where, based on the stress information measured on a wafer to be laser processed; “good substrate cutting was possible by changing the processing conditions depending on the stress” – in the example, tensile stress was large at outermost periphery and compressive stress was large at center of substrate - for stress information determined before processing, there is an inherent “prediction” of the response of the wafer based on said stress, demonstrated by the adjustment of laser strength before processing the different regions; this ensures optimal processing based on the measured stress, see [0027]; additionally, [0061]-[0062] discloses a link between processing conditions and the stress information [i.e. processing conditions (focal depth, modulation, etc.) are set based on stress information obtained before the wafer is irradiated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyakumura in view of Tokumitsu to incorporate wherein the control part is configured to: derive an estimation processing result before the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam by the irradiation part, and the estimation processing result including predicted information of a modified region of the wafer expected to result from irradiation of the wafer with the laser beam by the irradiation part based on the wafer processing information as suggested by Satoshi for the advantage of performing laser processing such as cutting of a substrate under optimal processing conditions according to the stress of the substrate, achieving highly accurate laser processing (Satoshi [0027]) and highly efficient laser processing (Satoshi [0095]).
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyakumura in view of Tokumitsu, in view of Satoshi, and further in view of US 2010/0258539 A1 by Takeshi Sakamoto (“Sakamoto”). Examiner notes the reference Sakamoto was cited in the IDS filed 03 October 2022 as JP 2009025995 A.
Regarding claim 5, Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Satoshi discloses the inspection device according to claim 4. Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Satoshi is silent to the inspection device according to claim 4, wherein, when the processing condition is corrected, the control part is configured to further update the database based on information including the corrected processing condition.
However, Sakamoto does address this limitation. Hyakumura, Tokumitsu, Satoshi, and Sakamoto are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of semiconducting wafer inspection and processing.
Sakamoto discloses the inspection device according to claim 4, “wherein, when the processing condition is corrected, the control part is configured to further update the database based on information including the corrected processing condition” (Sakamoto [0047] discloses a processing condition database 19 (analogous to the microprocessor and memory units of Tokumitsu in claim 2 ) which is prepared by accumulating data of specific processing conditions in association with processing object information in a laser processing apparatus 32; since the database is prepared by the accumulation of data for specific processing conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider obvious that a correction to the processing condition as disclosed in Hyakumura would be integrated in the data base of Sakamoto as an additionally accumulated entry with the corresponding processing condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyakumura in view of Tokumitsu and Satoshi to incorporate wherein, when the processing condition is corrected, the control part is configured to further update the database based on information including the corrected processing condition as suggested by Sakamoto for the advantage of favorably setting processing conditions in the laser processing apparatus based on information regarding the type and shape of the object (Sakamoto [0048]), while also enabling updates to the database for more comprehensive database for processing conditions.
Regarding claim 7, Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Satoshi discloses the inspection device according to claim 1. Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Satoshi is silent to the inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the control part extracts a plurality of processing condition candidates that are candidates of the processing condition corresponding to the wafer processing information that has received the input by referring to the database and controls the display part so that the plurality of processing condition candidates are displayed.
However, Sakamoto does address this limitation.
Sakamoto discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, “wherein the control part extracts a plurality of processing condition candidates that are candidates of the processing condition corresponding to the wafer processing information that has received the input by referring to the database and controls the display part so that the plurality of processing condition candidates are displayed” (Sakamoto [0078] discloses that a processing condition setting unit 16 refers to wafer thickness and incidence condition of the laser light termed as requisite information [wafer processing information – analogous to the wafer processing information of Hyakumura (laser wavelength, position on wafer, refractive index of wafer, etc.)] and extracts processing information corresponding to the wafer processing information; [0088]-[0089] and fig. 8 disclose extraction of processing conditions for specific wafer thicknesses, where the wafer thickness is input, i.e. processing conditions are extracted which correspond to the input wafer thickness [input wafer processing information]; as with claim 6 above regarding the display of the plurality of processing condition candidates, MPEP 2114 II. states that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art – in this case, since the display device of Hyakumura is capable of displaying information related to the wafer being inspected, the requirement that the determined processing condition is displayed does not make a contribution over the display device of Hyakumura).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyakumura in view of Tokumitsu and Satoshi to incorporate wherein the control part extracts a plurality of processing condition candidates that are candidates of the processing condition corresponding to the wafer processing information that has received the input by referring to the database and controls the display part so that the plurality of processing condition candidates are displayed as suggested by Sakamoto for the advantage of optimizing a basic processing condition to obtain a more detailed processing condition (Sakamoto [0078]), enabling a robust means for outputting structured processing condition information.
Regarding claim 8, Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu, Satoshi, and Sakamoto discloses the inspection device according to claim 7. Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu and Satoshi is silent to the inspection device according to claim 7, wherein the input part receives a user input for selecting one processing condition candidate in a state in which the plurality of processing condition candidates are displayed by the display part, and the control part determines the processing condition candidate selected in the user input received through the display part as the processing condition.
However, Sakamoto does address this limitation.
Sakamoto discloses the inspection device according to claim 7, “wherein the input part receives a user input for selecting one processing condition candidate in a state in which the plurality of processing condition candidates are displayed by the display part, and the control part determines the processing condition candidate selected in the user input received through the display part as the processing condition” (Sakamoto [0113] and figs. 13-14 shows examples of an operation screen [display] used for a setting operation of the processing condition in the laser processing apparatus; fig. 14 shows multiple choices for processing condition candidates which a user can select [receives a user input for selecting one processing condition candidate among a plurality of processing condition candidates]; setting 1 and condition 5 are chosen in fig. 14, where diagonal lines in the corresponding boxes indicate the choice via the display part; [0112]; a set button 75 is used to complete a setting operation of processing conditions, i.e. the chosen processing condition candidate after hitting button 75 would be recognized as having been chosen by the control part of Hyakumura).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyakumura in view of Tokumitsu and Satoshi to incorporate wherein the input part receives a user input for selecting one processing condition candidate in a state in which the plurality of processing condition candidates are displayed by the display part, and the control part determines the processing condition candidate selected in the user input received through the display part as the processing condition as suggested by Sakamoto for the advantage of a display interface that provides user-friendly functionality for viewing outputs of processing condition information, and selecting or updating processing condition settings of the laser processing apparatus (Sakamoto figs. 11-14).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyakumura in view of Tokumitsu, in view of Satoshi, in view of Sakamoto, and further in view of US 2021/0111075 A1 by Hironari Ohkubo et al. (“Ohkubo”).
Regarding claim 9, Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu, Satoshi, and Sakamoto discloses the inspection device according to claim 7. Hyakumura when modified by Tokumitsu, Satoshi, and Sakamoto is silent to the inspection device according to claim 7 wherein the control part derives a degree of matching with the wafer processing information for each of the plurality of processing condition candidates and controls the display part so that the plurality of processing condition candidates are displayed in a display mode in consideration of the degree of matching.
However, Ohkubo does address this limitation. Hyakumura, Tokumitsu, Tanaka, Sakamoto, and Ohkubo are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of semiconducting wafer inspection and processing.
Ohkubo discloses the inspection device according to claim 7, “wherein the control part derives a degree of matching with the wafer processing information for each of the plurality of processing condition candidates and controls the display part so that the plurality of processing condition candidates are displayed in a display mode in consideration of the degree of matching” (Ohkubo [0040] discloses a control unit 60 which performs operations related to a kerf check on the wafer 200; a kerf check is defined ([0037] as automatically checking whether a cut groove is within a planned dividing line, and determining if large chipping has occurred; the degree of matching is obtained by the kerf check, where a cut is compared against a planned dividing line – if they’re in agreement, the cut is along the planned dividing line; [0042]; a display unit displays the state of the kerf check [displayed in a display mode]; the processing condition candidates are already displayed upon the display of Hyakumura in view of Tokumitsu, Tanaka, and Sakamoto).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyakumura in view of Tokumitsu, Satoshi, and Sakamoto to incorporate wherein the control part derives a degree of matching with the wafer processing information for each of the plurality of processing condition candidates and controls the display part so that the plurality of processing condition candidates are displayed in a display mode in consideration of the degree of matching as suggested by Ohkubo for the advantage of confirming or ensuring no catastrophic breaks or chips have occurred using the kerf check (Ohkubo [0037]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0096773 A1 by Yeon-tae Kim et al. (“Kim”) in view of Satoshi.
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses an inspection method comprising:
a first step of receiving an input of wafer processing information including information of a wafer and a processing target for the wafer (Kim [0036] and fig. 2 disclose step P1000, which discloses the means by which a process environment is set, including mounting and aligning a semiconductor substrate W [wafer]; information related to status of alignment is here considered “information of a wafer”; [0025] the wafer is required to reach a predetermined temperature required for processing, where the predetermined temperature is considered an individual processing target for the wafer; [0036] additional processing targets include atmosphere, pressure, or luminance settings within a processing chamber housing the wafer);
a second step of determining a processing condition including an irradiation condition of a beam radiated to the wafer based on the wafer processing information received in the first step (Kim [0036]; the setting process includes the setting [determination] of one or more of temperature, atmosphere, etc. as in the first step; in this case, the processing condition is interpreted as the temperature, and is also interpreted as the irradiation condition since Kim [0027] discloses that a change in intensity of the light source causes changes in temperature of the wafer; therefore, the temperature of the wafer is a processing condition of the light emitted by the light source);
deriving an estimation processing result based on the processing condition (Kim [0043] figs. 2-3; step P3100 discloses a process the first two steps of fig 2 where light from lamp 120 is irradiated on the wafer [reflected from the wafer surface]; [0031] discloses light intensity data measured from an optical sensor undergoes a Fourier transform from the time domain; [0027] a change in intensity of the light source causes changes in temperature of the wafer, adjusted based on what the predetermined temperature [processing target] is; therefore, the derived Fourier transform of the light intensity data is an estimation processing result and is based on the laser processing target)
a third step of irradiating the wafer with the beam based on the processing condition determined in the second step (Kim [0043] figs. 2-3; step P3100 discloses a process the first two steps of fig 2 where light from lamp 120 is irradiated on the wafer [reflected from the wafer surface]; the intensity of light from lamp 120 has been seen to be temperature dependent, and therefore is based on the processing condition of the previous step); and
a fourth step of evaluating the processing condition based on a processing result of the wafer by the irradiation of the beam in the third step (Kim [0066]; the light intensity of light emitted by the lamp may be increased to increase the temperature in the chamber 100, or decreased to decrease the temperature in the chamber 100; a variation in magnitude of light intensity can affect frequency components for data obtained in P3200 (fig. 6); therefore, the temperature as the processing condition is evaluated based on the analyzed frequency distributions of measured light intensity in fig. 3 [based on a laser processing result]).
Kim is silent to a first step of receiving information including a laser processing target, a second step of determining an irradiation condition of a laser beam, deriving an estimation processing result before the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam, the estimation processing result including predicted information of a modified region of the wafer expected to result from irradiation of the wafer with the laser beam by the irradiation part based on the wafer processing information, a third step of irradiating the wafer with the laser beam, and a fourth step of evaluating based on a laser processing result of the wafer by the irradiation of the laser beam.
However, Satoshi does address this limitation. Kim and Satoshi are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to inspection and processing of semiconducting wafers using a light source.
Satoshi discloses “a first step of receiving information including a laser processing target, a second step of determining an irradiation condition of a laser beam, deriving an estimation processing result before the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam” (Satoshi [0001]-[0002] discloses that the invention relates to laser processing of semiconductor substrates; i.e. Satoshi teaches a laser processing device for processing semiconductor substrates, as does the current invention; Satoshi [0093] discloses the laser processing method within where stress information [estimation processing result information, displayed in fig. 2] of the substrate W to be processed is obtained before the substrate is subjected to laser processing [estimation processing result is derived before the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam]; the other non-bolded limitations have been addressed by Kim above), “the estimation processing result including predicted information of a modified region of the wafer expected to result from irradiation of the wafer with the laser beam by the irradiation part based on the wafer processing information” (Satoshi [0093] discloses that stress information of the substrate W is obtained by a stress measuring device 40, where the stress information is stored in a storage unit of the laser processing apparatus 200; [0105]-[0110] disclose examples where, based on the stress information measured on a wafer to be laser processed; “good substrate cutting was possible by changing the processing conditions depending on the stress” – in the example, tensile stress was large at outermost periphery and compressive stress was large at center of substrate - for stress information determined before processing, there is an inherent “prediction” of the response of the wafer based on said stress, demonstrated by the adjustment of laser strength before processing the different regions; this ensures optimal processing based on the measured stress, see [0027]; additionally, [0061]-[0062] discloses a link between processing conditions and the stress information [i.e. processing conditions (focal depth, modulation, etc.) are set based on stress information obtained before the wafer is irradiated), a third step of irradiating the wafer with the laser beam, and a fourth step of evaluating based on a laser processing result of the wafer by the irradiation of the laser beam (as with above, Satoshi [0001]-[0002] discloses that the invention relates to laser processing of semiconductor substrates; i.e. Satoshi teaches a laser processing device for processing semiconductor substrates, as does the current invention, comprising the steps of [0096] irradiating the wafer with a laser beam and [0098] evaluating the processing state of the substrate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a first step of receiving information including a laser processing target, a second step of determining an irradiation condition of a laser beam, deriving an estimation processing result before the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam, the estimation processing result including predicted information of a modified region of the wafer expected to result from irradiation of the wafer with the laser beam by the irradiation part based on the wafer processing information, a third step of irradiating the wafer with the laser beam, and a fourth step of evaluating based on a laser processing result of the wafer by the irradiation of the laser beam as suggested by Satoshi for the advantage of performing laser processing such as cutting of a substrate under optimal processing conditions according to the stress of the substrate, achieving highly accurate laser processing (Satoshi [0027]) and highly efficient laser processing (Satoshi [0095]).
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses an inspection method comprising:
a first step of receiving an input of wafer processing information including information of a wafer and a processing target for the wafer (Kim [0036] and fig. 2 disclose step P1000, which discloses the means by which the process environment is set, including mounting a semiconductor substrate W [wafer]; information related to status of alignment is here considered “information of a wafer”; [0025] the wafer is required to reach a predetermined temperature required for processing, where the predetermined temperature is considered a single processing target for the wafer; [0036] additional processing targets include atmosphere, pressure, or luminance settings within a processing chamber housing the wafer);
a second step of deriving an estimation processing result based on the wafer processing information received in the first step (Kim [0043] figs. 2-3; step P3100 discloses a process the first two steps of fig 2 where light from lamp 120 is irradiated on the wafer [reflected from the wafer surface]; since Kim [0027] discloses that a change in intensity of the light source causes changes in temperature of the wafer, therefore the intensity of light from the lamp 120 is temperature dependent and based on the processing condition of the previous step; [0031] discloses light intensity data measured from an optical sensor undergoes a Fourier transform from the time domain; [0027] a change in intensity of the light source causes changes in temperature of the wafer, adjusted based on what the predetermined temperature [processing target] is; therefore, the derived Fourier transform of the light intensity data is an estimation processing result and is based on the laser processing target);
and a third step of determining a processing condition including an irradiation condition of the beam based on the estimation processing result derived in the second step (Kim [0033]; physical properties of various aspects of the substrate are compared with reference values or critical values or critical dimensions, and feedback signals are generated in light of the comparison between reference and critical values; [0034] feedback signals include adjusting the luminance (i.e. adjusting the temperature of the lamp); the generation of feedback signals is considered determining a processing condition; since the luminance can receive a feedback signal, the adjustment of the luminance is an irradiation condition, then therefore the feedback is based on analysis of the Fourier transform [based on the estimation processing result]).
Kim is silent to a first step of receiving information including a laser processing target, a second step of deriving an estimation processing result before the wafer is irradiated with a laser beam, the estimation processing result including predicted information of a modified region of the wafer expected to result from irradiation of the wafer with the laser beam by the irradiation part based on the wafer processing information, and determining a processing condition including the irradiation condition of the laser beam.
However, Satoshi does address this limitation. Kim and Satoshi are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to inspection and processing of semiconducting wafers using a light source.
Satoshi discloses “a first step of receiving information including a laser processing target, a second step of deriving an estimation processing result before the wafer is irradiated with a laser beam” (Satoshi [0093] discloses the laser processing method within where stress information [estimation processing result information, displayed in fig. 2] of the substrate W to be processed is obtained before the substrate is subjected to laser processing [estimation processing result is derived before the wafer is irradiated with the laser beam]; any other non-bolded limitations have been addressed by Kim above), the estimation processing result including predicted information of a modified region of the wafer expected to result from irradiation of the wafer with the laser beam by the irradiation part based on the wafer processing information (Satoshi [0093] discloses that stress information of the substrate W is obtained by a stress measuring device 40, where the stress information is stored in a storage unit of the laser processing apparatus 200; [0105]-[0110] disclose examples where, based on the stress information measured on a wafer to be laser processed; “good substrate cutting was possible by changing the processing conditions depending on the stress” – in the example, tensile stress was large at outermost periphery and compressive stress was large at center of substrate - for stress information determined before processing, there is an inherent “prediction” of the response of the wafer based on said stress, demonstrated by the adjustment of laser strength before processing the different regions; this ensures optimal processing based on the measured stress, see [0027]; additionally, [0061]-[0062] discloses a link between processing conditions and the stress information [i.e. processing conditions (focal depth, modulation, etc.) are set based on stress information obtained before the wafer is irradiated), and determining a processing condition including the irradiation condition of the laser beam (as with above, Satoshi [0001]-[0002] discloses that the invention relates to laser processing of semiconductor substrates; i.e. Satoshi teaches a laser processing device for processing semiconductor substrates, as does the current invention, comprising the steps of [0096] irradiating the wafer with a laser beam and [0098] evaluating the processing state of the substrate; and [0099] determining the processing state of the substrate by an evaluation device – the processing condition is based on the irradiation condition of the laser beam [i.e. the strength of the laser beam as a function of stress found within the substrate, see example [0104]-[0110]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a first step of receiving information including a laser processing target, a second step of deriving an estimation processing result before the wafer is irradiated with a laser beam, the estimation processing result including predicted information of a modified region of the wafer expected to result from irradiation of the wafer with the laser beam by the irradiation part based on the wafer processing information, and determining a processing condition including the irradiation condition of the laser beam as suggested by Satoshi for the advantage of performing laser processing such as cutting of a substrate under optimal processing conditions according to the stress of the substrate, achieving highly accurate laser processing (Satoshi [0027]) and highly efficient laser processing (Satoshi [0095]).
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 JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877