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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended while claims 2-10 have remained unchanged from previous submission.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites that the object includes a “first surface that is an incident surface” and a second surface on an opposite side of the first surface.” Claim 1, from which claim 6 ultimately depends, has been amended to indicate that the object has an outer surface “including a front surface and a back surface.” The front and back surface, in claim 1, is described in association with a modified spot within the object caused by the laser beam. From here, it remains unclear in what way, if any, the first surface and second surface of claim 6 correspond to the front and back surface of claim 1. More specifically, it is unclear if the firs/second surfaces and the front/back surfaces are intended to refer to the same surfaces or different ones.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuichiro et al. JP 2019158811A in view of Yamamoto US 2019/0001433 A1 and Kazuji et al. JP 2017064746A.
Regarding claim 1, Shuichiro discloses a laser processing (Fig. 1, Ref. 1) device comprising: an irradiation unit configured to irradiate an object with laser light (Fig. 1, Ref. 40); an image capturing part configured to capture an image of the object with light having transparency to the object (Fig. 3, Ref 51); a display unit configured to display information (Fig. 1, Ref. 100); and a control unit (Fig. 1, Ref. 90), the image capturing part (Para. 22 wherein the control means performs image processing), and the display unit (Para. 22 wherein the control data is displayed on the monitor), wherein the laser light is used 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 (Para. 8 wherein the modified layer within the workpiece is described; Para. 65 wherein the fracture (referred to as a “crack”) is described to be within the workpiece), a second process of, after the first process, capturing an image of the object by control of the image capturing part and acquiring information indicating a formation state of the modified spot and/or the fracture (Para. 4 wherein imaging is used to observe the modified layer), and a third process of, after the second process, causing the display unit to display the information indicating the irradiation condition of the laser light in the first process and the information indicating the formation state acquired in the second process in association with each other, by the control of the display unit (Para. 26 wherein the images of the modified layer are displayed on the monitor).
While Shuichiro discloses wherein the laser light is used 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 (Para. 8 wherein the modified layer within the workpiece is described; Para. 65 wherein the fracture (referred to as a “crack”) is described to be within the workpiece), Shuichiro does not specifically disclose irradiating the object with the laser light by control of the irradiation unit to form a modified spot and a fracture extending from the modified spot in the object so as not to reach an outer surface including a front surface and a back surface of the object. Shuichiro also does not specifically disclose a control unit configured to control at least the irradiation unit and wherein the control unit performs a first process of irradiating the object with the laser light by control of the irradiation unit.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kazuji teaches irradiating the object with the laser light by control of the irradiation unit to form a modified spot and a fracture extending from the modified spot in the object so as not to reach an outer surface including a front surface and a back surface of the object (Para. 8 wherein the laser modifies a region inside a wafer).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wafer modification process of Shuichiro with process of modifying the internal layers of the substrate of Kazuji to reduce chipping when cutting or grinding the substrate (Kazuji Para. 4).
However in the same field of endeavor, Yamamoto teaches a control unit configured to control at least the irradiation unit (Para. 45 wherein the control unit outputs control signals for the laser processing apparatus) and wherein the control unit performs a first process of irradiating the object with the laser light (Para. 33 wherein the workpiece is processed by the laser beam) by control of the irradiation unit.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Shuichiro with the controller of Yamamoto to prevent the chuck table from being damaged by the laser beam applied thereto.
Regarding claim 2, Shuichiro discloses wherein the control unit performs a fourth process of, before the first process, determining whether or not the irradiation condition is a non-reaching condition being a 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 fourth process (Para. 62).
Regarding claim 3, Shuichiro discloses wherein the control unit 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 third process, and the third 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 (Para. 62 wherein the length of the modified area is determined in conjunction with Fig. 9 where the modified area does not pierce either surface).
Regarding claim 4, Shuichiro discloses an input unit configured to receive an input (Para. 25).
Regarding claim 5, Shuichiro discloses wherein the control unit performs a sixth process of causing the display unit to display information for urging selection of a formation state item to be displayed on the display unit in the third process among a plurality of formation state items being items included in the formation state by control of the display unit (Para. 26).
Shuichiro does not specifically disclose wherein the input unit receives an input of the selection of the formation state item, and the control unit causes the display unit to display information indicating the formation state item received by the input unit in the formation state, in association with information indicating the irradiation condition, by control of the display unit in the third process.
However in the same field of endeavor, Yamamoto teaches wherein the input unit receives an input of the selection of the formation state item, and the control unit causes the display unit to display information indicating the formation state item received by the input unit in the formation state, in association with information indicating the irradiation condition, by control of the display unit in the third process (Para. 45 wherein the control unit has laser parameters input via the display).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Shuichiro with the controller of Yamamoto to enter workpiece process information on the fly, for individual workpieces.
Regarding claim 6, Shuichiro discloses wherein the object includes a first surface that is an incident surface of the laser light (Fig. 5, Ref. Wa) and a second surface on an opposite side of the first surface (Fig. 5, Ref. Wb), the fracture includes a first fracture extending from the modified spot to the first surface side (Fig. 9, C1) and a second fracture extending from the modified spot to the second surface side (Fig. 9, C2), 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. 7 shows the modifications and cracks, alternately represented in Fig. 9, moving throughout the workpiece between the first and second surfaces).
Regarding claim 7, Shuichiro does not specifically disclose wherein the control unit performs a seventh process of causing the display unit to display information for urging selection of an irradiation condition item to be displayed on the display unit in the third process among a plurality of irradiation condition items being items included in the irradiation condition, by control of the display unit, the input unit receives an input of the selection of the irradiation condition item, and the control unit causes the display unit to display information indicating the irradiation condition item received by the input unit in the irradiation condition, in association with information indicating the formation state, by control of the display unit in the third process.
However in the same field of endeavor, Yamamoto teaches wherein the control unit performs a seventh process of causing the display unit to display information for urging selection of an irradiation condition item to be displayed on the display unit in the third process among a plurality of irradiation condition items being items included in the irradiation condition, by control of the display unit, the input unit receives an input of the selection of the irradiation condition item, and the control unit causes the display unit to display information indicating the irradiation condition item received by the input unit in the irradiation condition, in association with information indicating the formation state, by control of the display unit in the third process (Para. 45 wherein the control unit has laser parameters input via the display).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Shuichiro with the controller of Yamamoto to enter workpiece process information on the fly, for individual workpieces.
Regarding claim 8, Shuichiro discloses wherein the irradiation condition includes, as the irradiation condition item, at least one of a pulse width 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 the incident surface (Para. 20) 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 of the laser light of the object in the first process (Fig. 9, Ref. M), and the control unit controls the display unit to display the information indicating at least one of the irradiation condition items and the information indicating the formation state on the display unit in association with each other in the third process (Para. 26).
Regarding claim 10, Shuichiro discloses wherein the control unit controls the display unit to display a graph in which the information indicating the irradiation condition and the information indicating the formation state are associated with each other, on the display unit in the third process (Para. 67 wherein the laser processing conditions are determined to be appropriate through 3-dimensional imaging and measurements. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have the values for the laser processing conditions and size/depth of the modification (formation state) and display that data in a graph form. Para. 22 discloses the display is capable of displaying various data types).
Regarding claim 11, Shuichiro discloses a laser processing method (Para. 1) comprising: a first step of irradiating an object with laser light 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 (Para. 8; Para. 25); a second step of, after the first step, capturing an image of the object with light having transparency to the object and acquiring information indicating a formation state of the modified spot and/or the fracture (Para. 4); and a third step of, after the second step, displaying information indicating an irradiation condition of the laser light in the first step and information indicating the formation state acquired in the second step in association with each other (Para. 26).
While Shuichiro discloses wherein the laser light is used 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 (Para. 8 wherein the modified layer within the workpiece is described; Para. 65 wherein the fracture (referred to as a “crack”) is described to be within the workpiece), Shuichiro does not specifically disclose irradiating the object with the laser light by control of the irradiation unit to form a modified spot and a fracture extending from the modified spot in the object so as not to reach an outer surface including a front surface and a back surface of the object.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kazuji teaches irradiating the object with the laser light by control of the irradiation unit to form a modified spot and a fracture extending from the modified spot in the object so as not to reach an outer surface including a front surface and a back surface of the object (Para. 8 wherein the laser modifies a region inside s wafer).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wafer modification process of Shuichiro with process of modifying the internal layers of the substrate of Kazuji to reduce chipping when cutting or grinding the substrate (Kazuji Para. 4).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuichiro et al. JP 2019158811A in view of Yamamoto US 2019/0001433 A1 and in further view of Kumkar et al. US 2017/0259375 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Shuichiro discloses a condenser lens for condensing (Para. 18), on the object, wherein the condensing state includes an offset amount (Para. 18 wherein the focusing position of the beam can be adjusted) with respect to a center of a pupil surface of the condenser lens (Para. 18 wherein the focusing position of the beam can be adjusted).
Shuichiro does not specifically disclose a spatial light modulator configured to display a spherical aberration correction pattern for correcting spherical aberration of the laser light.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kumkar teaches a spatial light modulator (Para. 148) configured to display a spherical aberration correction pattern for correcting spherical aberration of the laser light (Para. 149 wherein the spatial light modulator correct focus based on laser fluctuations which a person of ordinary skill would apply to spherical aberrations).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Shuichiro with the spatial light modulator of Kumkar to allow for fine phase changes.
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 KRISTINA B BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Wednesday 6:00 am-12:00 pm and Tuesday 6:00 am-2:30 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/K.B.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights