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 on 03/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application. Claim 12 is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 12/31/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazuji, JP 2017064746 (hereafter Kazuji).
Regarding claim 1,
A laser processing device comprising: (Fig. 1 in Kazuji)
PNG
media_image1.png
686
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Kazuji teaches a laser processing device
a laser source configured to irradiate an object with laser light; (laser light source 22 in Fig. 1)
a camera configured to capture an image of the object; and( camera 50 in Fig. 1)
a controller configured to control at least the laser source and the camera, (page 7, paragraph 3 of the attached machine translation teaches “The control unit 60 includes a CPU, a memory, an input /output circuit unit, and the like, and controls the operation of each unit of the laser processing apparatus 1.”)
wherein a plurality of lines are set in the object, (Page 11, paragraph 3 teaches “the modified regions P1 and P2 are formed along all the planned cutting lines”)
the controller performs a first process of irradiating the object with the laser light along each of the plurality of lines by control of the laser source to form a modified spot and a fracture extending from the modified spot in the object so as not to reach an outer surface of the object, and (Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image2.png
763
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 of Kazuji teach forming fractures inside wafer
a second process of, after the first process, capturing an image of the object (Page 12, paragraph 1 teaches “In the wafer processing confirmation processing, an image is taken by the infrared camera 50 from the laser light incident surface (back surface) side of the wafer W on the same cutting scheduled line as the modified region formed inside the wafer W by the processing optical system.”)
with light having transparency to the object (Abstract teaches “an illumination light source 42 which outputs illumination light of a wavelength region for transmitting a wafer W;”. It is understood that the illumination light is transparent to the wafer.)
and acquiring information indicating a formation state of the modified spot and/or the fracture for each of the plurality of lines, by control of the camera, (Page 11, paragraph 7 teaches “Wafer processing confirmation processing for confirming the formation position of the modified region and processing damage is performed in real time.”)
in the first process, the object is irradiated with the laser light under different irradiation conditions in the plurality of lines, respectively, and (Fig. 2)
in the second process, for each of the plurality of lines, information indicating the irradiation condition of the laser light in the first process and information indicating the formation state are acquired in association with each other. (Page 14, paragraph 2 teaches “the result confirmed or measured in the wafer processing confirmation process is feedback-controlled to the formation position of the modified region and the laser processing conditions.” It is implied that for feedback confirmation processing the control unit acquires processing conditions and respective images of damages.)
Regarding claim 2,
The laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein the controller performs a third process of, before the first process, determining whether or not the irradiation condition is a non-reaching condition being condition that the fracture does not reach the outer surface, and the first process in a case where the irradiation condition is the non-reaching condition as a result of the determination in the third process. (The claim is interpreted as controller determines optimum processing condition. Page 7, paragraph 3 teaches “The control unit 60 includes a CPU, a memory, an input /output circuit unit, and the like, and controls the operation of each unit of the laser processing apparatus 1. Specifically, the thickness of the wafer W and the feeding speed of the wafer W are controlled, and the operation of each part (wafer moving part 11, laser head 20, etc.) is controlled under optimum conditions to form a modified region.”)
Regarding claim 3,
The laser processing device according to claim 1 , further comprising: a display configured to display information. (Page 8, paragraph 1 teaches “The television monitor displays a captured image (wafer image) captured by the infrared camera 50, or displays program contents and various messages.”)
Regarding claim 4,
The laser processing device according to claim 3, wherein the controller performs, after the second process, a fourth process of causing the display to display information acquired in the second process, by control of the display. (Page 14, paragraph 3 teaches “A plurality of captured images may be displayed on a television monitor”.)
Regarding claim 5,
The laser processing device according to claim 4, wherein the controller performs a fifth process of determining whether the fracture does not reach the outer surface, based on the information indicating the formation state acquired in the second process, after the second process and before the fourth process, and the fourth process in a case where the modified spot and the fracture do not reach the outer surface as a result of the determination in the fifth process. (The claim is interpreted as control unit determines whether or not a desired fracture is formed. Page 14, paragraph 2 teaches “it is possible to form a modified region suitable for wafer division and prevent processing damage while automatically modifying the modified region forming position and laser processing conditions. Stable quality chips can be obtained.” Page 14, paragraph 3 teaches “the above-described determination process is automatically performed by the image processing unit 60a provided in the laser processing apparatus 1 is shown.”)
Regarding claim 9,
The laser processing device according to claim 4 , wherein in a case where a peak value of the formation state is obtained in the second process, the controller causes the display to display the irradiation condition corresponding to the peak value by control of the display in the fourth process. (The claim is interpreted as display unit displays values. Page 8 paragraph 1 teaches “The television monitor displays a captured image (wafer image) captured by the infrared camera 50, or displays program contents and various messages.”)
Regarding claim 10,
The laser processing device according to claim 4, wherein the controller performs, before the fourth process, a seventh process of causing the display to display information for urging selection of a formation state item to be displayed on the display in the fourth process among a plurality of formation state items included in the formation state, (Page 12, paragraph 2 teaches “Each captured image stored in the storage unit can be displayed on a television monitor in accordance with a user operation.” It is implied that the device has menu items that a user can select. )
receives the selection of the formation state item, and displays information indicating the received formation state item in the formation state, in association with information indicating the irradiation condition, by control of the display in the fourth process. (Page 12, paragraph 2 teaches “Each captured image stored in the storage unit can be displayed on a television monitor in accordance with a user operation.” It is implied that the device has input unit to receive user operation.)
Regarding claim 11,
The laser processing device according to claim 10, wherein the object includes a first surface that is an incident surface of the laser light and a second surface on an opposite side of the first surface, (Fig. 2 and 3 in Kazuji)
the fracture includes a first fracture extending from the modified spot to the first surface side and a second fracture extending from the modified spot to the second surface side, (Fig. 2 and 3 in Kazuji)
the formation state includes, as the formation state item, at least one of a length of the first fracture in a first direction intersecting with the first surface, a length of the second fracture in the first direction, a total length of the fractures in the first direction, a position of a first end that is a tip of the first fracture on the first surface side in the first direction, a position of a second end that is a tip of the second fracture on the second surface side in the first direction, a shift width between the first end and the second end when viewed from the first direction, presence or absence of a dent of the modified spot, a meandering amount of the second end when viewed from the first direction, and presence or absence of the tip of the fracture in a region between the modified spots arranged in a direction intersecting with the first surface in a case where a plurality of the modified spots is formed at positions different from each other in the direction intersecting with the first surface in the first process. (Fig. 2 and 3 in Kazuji)
Additionally, the claim is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. The material or article work on is “the object”. The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). MPEP § 2115.
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuji as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Idaka et al., JP 5060673 (hereafter Idaka).
Regarding claim 6,
The laser processing device according to claim 3, wherein the controller: performs, before the first process, a sixth process of causing the display to display information for urging selection of a variable item that varies for each of the lines among a plurality of irradiation condition items included in the irradiation condition in the first process, by control of the display , (The claim is interpreted as display unit asks for user input. Kazuji is silent about this.
Idaka teaches “The input unit 3 is an input device for a user to input various setting data regarding the operation of the laser processing apparatus 100, and a keyboard, a touch panel, a mouse, or the like can be used. For example, the operating conditions of the laser processing apparatus 100 and the contents of printing are input by the user and output from the input unit 3 to the laser control unit 2. Although not shown, a display unit for confirming the setting data input by the input unit 3 and displaying the state of the laser control unit 2 and the like may be provided separately” on page 7, paragraph 6 of the attached machine translation.)
receives the selection of the variable item, and performs the first process by the control of the laser source such that the received variable item varies for each of the lines. (The claim is interpreted as user can select any processing parameter. Kazuji is silent about this.
Idaka teaches “The input unit 3 is an input device for a user to input various setting data regarding the operation of the laser processing apparatus 100, and a keyboard, a touch panel, a mouse, or the like can be used. For example, the operating conditions of the laser processing apparatus 100 and the contents of printing are input by the user and output from the input unit 3 to the laser control unit 2. Although not shown, a display unit for confirming the setting data input by the input unit 3 and displaying the state of the laser control unit 2 and the like may be provided separately” on page 7, paragraph 6 of the attached machine translation.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the display unit and input unit in Kazuji to ask for user input, acquire user input, and update processing conditions according to the user input as taught in Idaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to set the operating conditions of laser processing apparatus as taught in page 7, paragraph 6 in Idaka.
Regarding claim 7,
The laser processing device according to claim 6, wherein the irradiation condition includes, as the irradiation condition item, at least one of a pulse waveform of the laser light, pulse energy of the laser light, a pulse pitch of the laser light, a condensing state of the laser light, and an interval of the modified spots in a direction intersecting with an incident surface of the laser light of the object in the first process, in a case where a plurality of the modified spots is formed at positions different from each other in the direction intersecting with the incident surface. (Kazuji is silent about this.
Idaka teaches “In the device setting tab, a power offset setting unit 301 for adjusting the laser intensity by specifying an offset value, a scan speed offset setting unit 302 for specifying the offset value and adjusting the scanning speed of the laser light L” on page 18, paragraph 8.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the display unit and input unit in Kazuji to ask for user input, acquire user input, and update processing conditions according to the user input as taught in Idaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to set the operating conditions of laser processing apparatus as taught in page 7, paragraph 6 in Idaka.
Regarding claim 8,
The laser processing device according to claim 7, further comprising: a spatial light modulator configured to display a spherical aberration correction pattern for correcting spherical aberration of the laser light; and (Page 7 paragraph 4 in Kazuji teaches “the control unit 60 controls the operation of the spatial light modulator 28 and causes the spatial light modulator 28 to present a predetermined hologram pattern.”)
a condenser lens for condensing, on the object, the laser light modulated by the spherical aberration correction pattern in the spatial light modulator, (Page 7, paragraph 4 in Kazuji teaches “The spatial light modulator 28 is caused to present a hologram pattern for modulating the laser light L so that the laser light L is simultaneously condensed by the condenser lens 38.”)
wherein the condensing state includes an offset amount of a center of the spherical aberration correction pattern with respect to a center of a pupil surface of the condenser lens. (Page 10, paragraph 4 in Kazuji teaches “ by modulating the laser light L by the spatial light modulator 28, the laser light L is simultaneously condensed at different positions inside the wafer W, so that the throughput from the surface of the wafer W can be reduced without reducing the throughput.” It is implied that condensing state includes correction pattern outside the central region because laser light is condensed at different positions in the wafer outside the central region.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/30/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are not persuasive. The applicant amended the claims and argued that this makes the claimed invention distinguishable from prior art.
In response to applicant's argument on page 9 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., comparing amount of fracture) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argued on pages 9-10 that Kazuji does not teach plurality of lines. However, page 11, paragraph 2-3 in Kazuji teaches “When the modified regions P1 and P2 are formed along all the planned cutting lines parallel to the X direction, the XYZθ table 12 is rotated by 90 °, and all the lines orthogonal to the previous line are similarly modified region P1. , P2 is formed. As a result, the modified regions P1 and P2 are formed along all the planned cutting lines.”
The applicant argued on page 9 that Kazuji does not teach adjusting laser irradiation conditions. However, Fig. 6 of Kazuji teaches the relationship between the aberration correction amount and the total crack length. Aberration correction amount is a parameter for laser irradiation, thus Kazuji teaches adjusting the laser irradiation conditions to optimize fracture length.
PNG
media_image3.png
684
920
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Translated Fig. 6 in Kazuji
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 FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights