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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 8 are amended. Claims 2-7 are as previously presented. Claims 9-11 are newly added. Therefore, claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on November 26, 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previously set-forth objection to claim 1 and the claim interpretation of the emission unit due to the added structure of “laser light”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that for the “beam width adjusting unit”, there is sufficient structure as claim 2 includes that a slit portion is included and that language regarding a “beam width adjusting” is used.
It is the Examiner’s position that applicant’s argument regarding structure would be persuasive if the structure within claim 2 were in claim 1. However, claim 1 is missing structure as to how the beam width adjusting feature is accomplished and a 112f interpretation must be taken. It is the Examiner’s position that applicant acknowledges that structure is missing in claim 1 as the applicant points to claim 2 regarding the slit as being the structure.
Applicant argues that for the “control unit”, there is sufficient structure as the control unit is configured to control a beam width adjusting unit.
Under the three prong analysis of 35 U.S.C. 112f, the “control unit” is the generic placeholder, the language “configured to” is the transition word, and the language “control a the beam width adjusting unit” is the function being performed. It is the Examiner’s position that the function being performed does not have sufficient structure to allow one of ordinary skill in the art recognize what exactly the control unit is controlling and how that structure accomplishes beam width adjusting. As a result, a 112f interpretation is taken for the control unit so that one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that control over the laser beam is accomplished through structures such as, Para. 0026, “The control unit 8 is configured as a computer device including a processor, a memory, a storage, a communication device, and the like.”.
Applicant argues that the primary reference Ikegami does not disclose emitting a laser light to a wafer from the first surface side to form one or more modified regions inside the wafer as the laser goes through liquid on the surface of the wafer.
It is the Examiner’s position that applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Although there is liquid applied to a wafer surface, the laser beam passes through that liquid and onto the target surface to be processed, Para. 0020, “supplying a liquid, through which a laser beam can be transmitted, to a target surface of an object to be processed, (2) guiding a laser beam to the target surface through the liquid, and (3) processing the target surface by the laser beam under”, where processing of the target surface is done by a laser beam.
The laser beam further modifies regions inside the wafer by creating the trench which is inside the wafer, Para. 0085, “laser beam machining is applied to dice the silicon single crystal wafer 11 into chips by forming a dicing trench 11 T.”, where the dicing trench is not a surface level modification, Para. 0081, “A trench 11 T having a width of about 10 μm and a depth of about 50 μm is formed by the laser irradiation through the liquid”. Applicant applies to imply that a “surface trench” does not modify regions within the wafer, however Figure 4a clearly shows that the trench starts from the surface of the wafer but then extends into the wafer and where this trench is created by the laser beam.
Applicant argues that Ikegami does not disclose where the trench 11T has a width equal to the street and target beam width according to surface information.
It is the Examiner’s position that applicant’s argument is true, which is why a secondary reference Iinuma was used. However, Examiner notes that the trench has a width equal to the street and target beam within Ikegami, Para. 0082, “The profile of the laser beam 2A is a rectangle of 10 μmx500 μm. The irradiation energy density per pulse is 4 J/cm2, and the oscillation frequency is 10 kHz. By scanning the laser beam 2A at 10 mm/sec in the longitudinal direction of beam profile, a dicing line is formed in the target surface llA.”, and Para. 0188, “The controller 211 also controls the slit size of the beam shaper 215 so as to obtain the desired beam profile”, where the desired beam profile can be as disclosed in Para. 0082, where the controller can adjust the beam shaper to those specifications and where the dicing line/street has a width that would be equal to the beam width, Para. 0081, “A trench 11 T having a width of about 10 μm and a depth of about 50 μm is formed by the laser irradiation through the liquid.”.
Ikegami discloses where the laser beam width and trench width are the same and where the trench is a dicing line that would be a street to separate chips from the wafer. The dependance of the street width and target beam on the surface information is then disclosed by Iinuma. Therefore, the combination of Iinuma with Ikegami would result in surface information determining street width, where the laser beam width can be matched with the street width from Ikegami.
Applicant argues that Iinuma does not disclose where beam width of the laser light is equal or less than the width of the street and target beam width.
It is the Examiner’s position that applicant’s argument is true. However in a U.S.C. 103 rejection, a singular reference does not need to meet all the limitations and it is instead the combination of references that must meet the claim limitations. It is the Examiner’s position that as disclosed above, the primary reference Ikegami discloses the street width matching the target beam width, and where Iinuma discloses where a beam width can be dependent on the surface conditions of the wafer. As a result, the combination of the references would allow a user to adjust beam width depending on surface conditions as taught by Iinuma, and where the beam width would match the street width created as taught by Ikegami.
Applicant argues that Iinuma does not include adjusting a beam width with respect to the height of the structure.
It is the Examiner’s position that this argument is not persuasive as Iinuma’s formula includes beam width related to height, Page 8, Para. 3 from end, “This value is 75 μm or less, which is the distance from the breaking line to the bump on one side, and can satisfy the relationship of a ≧ h × tan θ1 + L × tan θ2 + α, at least the relationship of a> h × tan θ1 + L × tan θ2.”, where the main relationship can be shown as 2a - 2h tanθ1 - 2α ≧ 2L tanθ2, where 2L tanθ2 is the beam width, 2a is the street width, and h is the height of the elements, where the beam width can be dependent on the position of the elements through the street width dimensions since a greater street width creates smaller elements and on the height of the elements.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Ikegami and Iinuma use different processes, it is the Examiner’s position that both prior art documents are in the same field of laser ablation to create ablated regions for cleaving and can be used together. Iinuma further provides an advantage to Ikegami in allowing for laser beam energy to be concentrated at the desired scribing or street location instead of also through the wafer, where this can improve the quality of the processing.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2020-066502, filed on 04/02/2020.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a beam width adjusting unit” in Claims 1 and 8
The generic placeholder is “width adjusting unit” and the functional language attributed the “width adjusting unit” includes: “configured to adjust a beam width” from claim 1 and “that adjusts a beam width” from claim 8
“a control unit” in Claim 1
The generic placeholder is “control unit” and the functional language attributed the “control unit” includes: “configured to control the beam width adjusting unit”.
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.
Reference is made to the Specification filed on 09/27/2022.
Regarding the beam width adjusting unit, Para. 0009, “The beam width adjusting unit may have a slit portion for adjusting the beam width by blocking a part of the laser light”, where the beam width adjusting unit is assumed to be a structure with an adjustable slit that can block the laser beam
Regarding the control unit, Para. 0026, “The control unit 8 is configured as a computer device including a processor, a memory, a storage, a communication device, and the like.”, where the control unit is assumed to be a generic computer
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (US 20020050489 A1, hereinafter Ikegami) in view of Iinuma et al. (JP 2006173520 A1, hereinafter Iinuma).
Regarding claim 1, Ikegami discloses a laser processing device (Para. 0003, “method for manufacturing semiconductor devices using the laser beam machining approach”), comprising:
a stage that supports a wafer having a first surface (Para. 0179, “an X-Y-8 stage 210 for holding a wafer 201”), on which a plurality of elements are formed and a street extends so as to pass between adjacent elements (Para. 0138, “FIG. 10 illustrates examples of optimization of the chip arrangement on the wafer 60, which are realized by laser-beam machining dicing lines through a running liquid.”, and Para. 0133, “Apart from the first dicing technique explained in connection with FIG. 4, there is a dicing technique for polishing and thinning a silicon wafer first and then dicing the thin wafer into chips.”, where the multiple chips are construed to be the plurality of elements on the first surface of the wafer, where streets or dicing lines are formed between each chip), and a second surface on a side opposite to the first surface (Modified Fig. 19, where the second surface opposite to the first surface is shown);
a laser light emission unit configured to emit laser light to the wafer from the first surface side to form one or more modified regions inside the wafer (Para. 0179, “The laser beam machining apparatus 200 includes a laser oscillator 214 for outputting a laser beam 231”, and modified Fig. 19, where the laser beam is shown to be directed to the first surface of the wafer to create chips);
a beam width adjusting unit configured to adjust a beam width of the laser light (Para. 0187, “The beam shaper 215 is comprised of a variable slit, which regulates the dimensions of the profile of the laser beam 231 in the X and Y directions, independently.”); and
a control unit configured to control the beam width adjusting unit so that the beam width of the laser light is adjusted to be equal to or less than a width of the street (Para. 0082, “The profile of the laser beam 2A is a rectangle of 10 μmx500 μm. The irradiation energy density per pulse is 4 J/cm2, and the oscillation frequency is 10 kHz. By scanning the laser beam 2A at 10 mm/sec in the longitudinal direction of beam profile, a dicing line is formed in the target surface llA.”, and Para. 0188, “The controller 211 also controls the slit size of the beam shaper 215 so as to obtain the desired beam profile”, where the desired beam profile can be as disclosed in Para. 0082, where the controller can adjust the beam shaper to those specifications and where the dicing line/street has a width that would be equal to the beam width, Para. 0081, “A trench 11 T having a width of about 10 μm and a depth of about 50 μm is formed by the laser irradiation through the liquid.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
287
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 19, Ikegami
Ikegami does not disclose:
a target beam width according to surface information including a position and a height of a structure forming an element adjacent to the street.
However, Iinuma discloses, in the similar field of laser processing systems (Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “When such a silicon substrate is cleaved by laser light irradiation, a cleavage line is assumed on the surface of the silicon substrate exposed between the structures formed on the silicon substrate surface.”), where the target laser beam width can be adjusted also based on the surface information of the elements being formed, which include position and height of the elements or chips (Page 8, Para. 3 from end, “This value is 75 μm or less, which is the distance from the breaking line to the bump on one side, and can satisfy the relationship of a ≧ h × tan θ1 + L × tan θ2 + α, at least the relationship of a> h × tan θ1 + L × tan θ2.”, where the main relationship can be shown as 2a - 2h tanθ1 - 2α ≧ 2L tanθ2, where 2L tanθ2 is the beam width, 2a is the street width, and h is the height of the elements, where the beam width can be dependent on the position of the elements through the street width dimensions since a greater street width creates smaller elements and on the height of the elements). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the beam width control in Ikegami to include the position and height of the chip dependences as taught by Iinuma.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to concentrate laser beam energy to the desired scribing or street location instead of also through the wafer, where this can improve the quality of the processing, as stated by Iinuma, Page 8, Para. 2 from end, “A phenomenon such as poor processing formation is caused by the fact that each of the structures formed on the surface of the silicon substrate 10 focuses the laser beam LB on the surface structure when the laser beam LB is condensed inside the substrate. Since the laser beam LB is no longer transmitted or the laser beam LB is not transmitted through the structure, desired energy can be transmitted to the condensing point, and it is not generated.”.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ikegami teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the beam width adjusting unit has a slit portion for adjusting the beam width by blocking a part of the laser light (Ikegami, Para. 0187, “The beam shaper 215 is comprised of a variable slit, which regulates the dimensions of the profile of the laser beam 231 in the X and Y directions, independently.”), and the control unit derives a slit width relevant to a transmission region of the laser light in the slit portion based on the surface information, and sets the slit width in the slit portion (Ikegami, and Para. 0188, “The controller 211 also controls the slit size of the beam shaper 215 so as to obtain the desired beam profile”; and teaching from Iinuma, Page 8, Para. 3 from end, “This value is 75 μm or less, which is the distance from the breaking line to the bump on one side, and can satisfy the relationship of a ≧ h × tan θ1 + L × tan θ2 + α, at least the relationship of a> h × tan θ1 + L × tan θ2.”, where the main relationship can be shown as 2a - 2h tanθ1 - 2α ≧ 2L tanθ2, where 2L tanθ2 is the beam width, 2a is the street width, and h is the height of the elements, where the beam width can be dependent on the position of the elements through the street width dimensions since a greater street width creates smaller elements and on the height of the elements; where the beam width can be controlled dependent on surface information, where in modified Ikegami, the controller of Ikegami for controlling the slit of the beam shaper would be used).
Claims 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (US 20020050489 A1, hereinafter Ikegami) in view of Iinuma et al. (JP 2006173520 A1, hereinafter Iinuma) in further view of Shapiro et al. (WO 2016131021 A1, hereinafter Shapiro).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ikegami teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, as set forth above.
Modified Ikegami does not disclose:
wherein, when the derived slit width is smaller than a limit value that enables formation of the modified region, the control unit outputs information indicating that processing is not possible to an outside.
However, Shapiro discloses, in the similar field of laser processing (Para. 0033, “context of a laser cutter, it can mean removing some of the material from the surface”), where if a laser beam parameter falls below a threshold value needed to modify a region, the machine alerts the user that processing is not possible (Para. 00114, “The IR sensor therefore can function as a way to verify the beam's state, or the power of the laser. If the power is too low or too high, then the power to the laser can, for example, be adjusted to compensate or a user can be alerted.”, where when the power is too low, then processing would not be possible as the required power serves as the power level needed for processing to occur; where a user would understand through a low power alert that processing is not possible; where alerts are generated by the system, Para. 0093, “then the CNC machine 100 can alert a user”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified slit width control and predetermined threshold width values and the control unit from modified Ikegami to be controlled to where if a laser parameter falls below a threshold that a user is alerted by the system as stated by Shapiro; where the laser power in Shapiro would correspond to the beam width in Ikegami, as with the limited amount of laser power, too small of a beam width would not provide enough power to process the substrate; where the alert generated by the system in Shapiro would be handled by the control unit of the system in modified Ikegami.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to have a user alerted that a laser beam parameter is not within a predetermined value, where this can allow for corrections so that the system can continue to function properly, as stated by Shapiro, Para. 00114, “If the power is too low or too high, then the power to the laser can, for example, be adjusted to compensate or a user can be alerted.”.
Claims 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (US 20020050489 A1, hereinafter Ikegami) in view of Iinuma et al. (JP 2006173520 A1, hereinafter Iinuma) in further view of Hayashi (JP H11267861 A, hereinafter Hayashi) and Shapiro et al. (WO 2016131021 A1, hereinafter Shapiro).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ikegami teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, as set forth above.
Modified Ikegami does not disclose:
wherein, when the derived slit width is a slit width that increases a length of a crack extending from the modified region, the control unit outputs information for prompting a change in processing conditions to an outside.
However, Hayashi discloses, in the similar field of laser processing (Para. 0001, “method for marking a light transmitting material using laser light.”), where a laser beam width can create cracks within the modified region, where that beam width is reduced in order to prevent cracks from forming (Page 8, Para. 6 from end, “However, when the mark pattern 7 is enlarged, the crack 6 or the crack 5 (FIG. 10) In the present invention, the irradiation energy of the laser beam 3 is reduced to eliminate optical damage, or to reduce the diameter of the laser light 3 as much as possible, or to reduce the diameter of the transparent glass substrate 1 as much as possible, or to prevent optical damage. Instead, the irradiation energy is kept at a level that causes a change in the optical properties of the transparent glass substrate 1.”, where optical damage that includes cracks can be prevented through reducing the diameter of the laser light, which would be laser beam width). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser beam width threshold in modified Ikegami to have an upper value that should not be exceeded in order to prevent cracks from forming as taught by Hayashi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to improve the aesthetic appearance of the substrate, as cracks are prevented from forming, as stated by Hayashi, Page 8, Para. 6-7 from end, “In other words, in practice, Marking without scratches on the surface 2 can be realized… the irradiation energy of the laser beam 3 is reduced to eliminate optical damage, or to reduce the diameter of the laser light 3 as much as possible, or to reduce the diameter of the transparent glass substrate 1 as much as possible, or to prevent optical damage.”.
Further, Shapiro discloses where if a laser beam parameter exceeds a threshold value, the machine alerts the user (Para. 00114, “The IR sensor therefore can function as a way to verify the beam's state, or the power of the laser. If the power is too low or too high, then the power to the laser can, for example, be adjusted to compensate or a user can be alerted.”, where alerts are generated by the system, Para. 0093, “then the CNC machine 100 can alert a user”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified slit width control, the control unit, and the crack formation from high slit width from modified Ikegami to be controlled to where if a laser parameter exceeds a threshold that a user is alerted by the system as stated by Shapiro; where the laser power in Shapiro would correspond to the beam width in Ikegami; where the alert generated by the system in Shapiro would be handled by the control unit of the system in modified Ikegami.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to have a user alerted that a laser beam parameter is not within a predetermined value, where this can allow for corrections so that the system can continue to function properly, where teaching from Hayashi shows that having too high of a laser beam width can cause cracking, as stated by Shapiro, Para. 00114, “If the power is too low or too high, then the power to the laser can, for example, be adjusted to compensate or a user can be alerted.”.
Claims 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (US 20020050489 A1, hereinafter Ikegami) in view of Iinuma et al. (JP 2006173520 A1, hereinafter Iinuma) in further view of Milne et al. (GB 2507542 A1, hereinafter Milne).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ikegami teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, as set forth above.
Modified Ikegami does not disclose:
wherein the control unit derives the slit width by further considering a processing depth of the laser light in the wafer.
However, Milne discloses, in the similar field of laser processing systems (Page 11, Para. 1, “a method of forming fine scale structures in the surface of a dielectric substrate to two or more depths…using a first solid state laser to provide a first pulsed laser beam; providing a first mask having a pattern for defining a first set of structures at a first depth”), where the beam width can be dependent on the processing depth of the laser light on the substrate (Page 18, Para. 2 from end, “Since the beam at the mask is very likely to have a non-uniform distribution of energy density and the depth of substrate material removed on each laser pulse generally varies non-linearly with energy density, the exact trajectory of the beam over the mask surface in order to cause ablation to a uniform depth will depend on the beam shape and beam profile and will, generally, be determined experimentally.”, where beam shape includes the width). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system slit for controlling the beam width for a wafer in modified Ikegami to have beam shape that includes beam width to be dependent on the depth of the laser light as taught by Milne.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to tailor the laser beam profile experimentally so that the correct profiles can be used for the different depths of different substrates, where having the profiles experimentally determined can save a user time when doing subsequent modifications, as stated by Milne, Page 19, Para. 1, “A simple example… A typical dielectric material on the substrate might have ablation characteristics at 355nm such that, at an energy density of 0.5J/cm2, each laser pulse removes material to a depth of0.33μm. To achieve this energy density in a round spot the diameter required is 0.87mm at the substrate and 2.6mm at the mask (assuming a 3x de-magnification factor).”.
Regarding claim 6, modified Ikegami teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, as set forth above, discloses wherein, when a plurality of modified regions are formed at different depths inside the wafer by emitting the laser light to an inside of the wafer (Teaching from Milne, Page 11, Para. 1, “a method of forming fine scale structures in the surface of a dielectric substrate to two or more depths…using a first solid state laser to provide a first pulsed laser beam; providing a first mask having a pattern for defining a first set of structures at a first depth”, where multiple depths can be done to create different structures), the control unit derives the slit width for each combination of the surface information and the processing depth of the laser light (Teaching from Milne, Page 18, Para. 2 from end, “Since the beam at the mask is very likely to have a non-uniform distribution of energy density and the depth of substrate material removed on each laser pulse generally varies non-linearly with energy density, the exact trajectory of the beam over the mask surface in order to cause ablation to a uniform depth will depend on the beam shape and beam profile and will, generally, be determined experimentally.”, where different depths have their own unique beam shape, where Ikegami would allow for the adjustment of the slit in order to achieve those beam shapes).
Claims 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (US 20020050489 A1, hereinafter Ikegami) in view of Iinuma et al. (JP 2006173520 A1, hereinafter Iinuma) in further view of Isaji et al. (WO 2013038606 A1, hereinafter Isaji).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ikegami teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the control unit considers laser incidence on the first surface (Ikegami, Para. 0189, “Based on the image data, the controller 211 adjusts the angle of the mirror 218 so that the laser beam 232 is incident to the prescribed position on the wafer 201 at a high precision.”).
Modified Ikegami does not disclose:
control unit controls the beam width adjusting unit by further considering an amount of laser incidence position shift on the first surface during processing.
However, Isaji discloses, in the similar field of laser processing systems (Page 1, last Para., “a laser processing apparatus”), where if the laser incidence position shifts, the laser beam shape can be adjusted to compensate (Page 10, Para. 2, “even if the plate thickness of the printed wiring board that is the workpiece 11, for example, the hole machining is not uniform, or the surface height 11 g of the machining table such as the XY table 15 is not constant, The laser beam 12 can be accurately imaged in a desired beam shape with respect to the surface 11a of the workpiece 11, and the displacement of the machining position can be suppressed.”, where incidence position shifts because the thickness of the substrate might be different, where the beam shape is altered, Page 9, last Para., “Based on the flatness data, the position of the fθ lens in the Z-axis direction with respect to the surface 11a of the workpiece 11 is corrected”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the beam shape control through the slit in modified Ikegami to have beam shape or width control through incidence position shifts as taught by Isaji.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to still be able to perform accurate laser processing with a desired beam shape when the thickness of the substrate or the substrate holder flatness are not uniform, as stated by Isaji, Page 10, Para. 2, “even if the plate thickness of the printed wiring board that is the workpiece 11, for example, the hole machining is not uniform, or the surface height 11 g of the machining table such as the XY table 15 is not constant, The laser beam 12 can be accurately imaged in a desired beam shape with respect to the surface 11a of the workpiece 11, and the displacement of the machining position can be suppressed.”.
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (US 20020050489 A1, hereinafter Ikegami) in view of Iinuma et al. (JP 2006173520 A1, hereinafter Iinuma) and Mori et al. (WO 2019188518 A1, hereinafter Mori).
Regarding claim 8, Ikegami discloses a method (Para. 0003, “a method for manufacturing semiconductor devices using the laser beam machining approach”), comprising:
setting a wafer having a first surface (Para. 0056, “The holder 7 is configured like a tray to receive the wafer 10. The shape of the holder 7 may be suitably changed according to the shape of the object that is to be processed.”), on which a plurality of elements are formed and a street extends so as to pass between adjacent elements (Para. 0138, “FIG. 10 illustrates examples of optimization of the chip arrangement on the wafer 60, which are realized by laser-beam machining dicing lines through a running liquid.”, and Para. 0133, “Apart from the first dicing technique explained in connection with FIG. 4, there is a dicing technique for polishing and thinning a silicon wafer first and then dicing the thin wafer into chips.”, where the multiple chips are construed to be the plurality of elements on the first surface of the wafer, where streets or dicing lines are formed between each chip), and a second surface on a side opposite to the first surface (Modified Fig. 19, where the second surface opposite to the first surface is shown);
receiving an input of a width of the street (Para. 0081, “A trench 11 T having a width of about 10 μm and a depth of about 50 μm is formed by the laser irradiation through the liquid.”, where the street width is set);
controlling a beam width adjusting unit that adjusts a beam width of laser light to be equal to or less than a target beam width according to the street information (Para. 0082, “The profile of the laser beam 2A is a rectangle of 10 μmx500 μm. The irradiation energy density per pulse is 4 J/cm2, and the oscillation frequency is 10 kHz. By scanning the laser beam 2A at 10 mm/sec in the longitudinal direction of beam profile, a dicing line is formed in the target surface llA.”, and Para. 0188, “The controller 211 also controls the slit size of the beam shaper 215 so as to obtain the desired beam profile”, where the desired beam profile can be as disclosed in Para. 0082, where the controller can adjust the beam shaper to those specifications and where the dicing line/street has a width that would be equal to the beam width, Para. 0081, “A trench 11 T having a width of about 10 μm and a depth of about 50 μm is formed by the laser irradiation through the liquid.”, where a user would need to have a desired street width first and then control the beam shaper to achieve that desired street width); and
controlling a laser light emission unit that emits laser light so that the laser light is emitted to the wafer from the first surface side to form one or more modified regions inside the wafer (Para. 0179, “The laser beam machining apparatus 200 includes a laser oscillator 214 for outputting a laser beam 231”, and modified Fig. 19, where the laser beam is shown to be directed to the first surface of the wafer to create chips; Para. 0081, “A trench 11 T having a width of about 10 μm and a depth of about 50 μm is formed by the laser irradiation through the liquid.”, where the laser modifies regions within the wafer as the trench has a depth that is within the wafer).
Ikegami does not disclose:
receiving an input of surface information including a position and a height of a structure forming an element adjacent to the street; controlling the beam according to the surface information;
an inspection method.
However, Iinuma discloses, in the similar field of laser processing systems (Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “When such a silicon substrate is cleaved by laser light irradiation, a cleavage line is assumed on the surface of the silicon substrate exposed between the structures formed on the silicon substrate surface.”), where the target laser beam width can be adjusted also based on the surface information of the elements being formed, which include position and height of the elements or chips (Page 8, Para. 3 from end, “This value is 75 μm or less, which is the distance from the breaking line to the bump on one side, and can satisfy the relationship of a ≧ h × tan θ1 + L × tan θ2 + α, at least the relationship of a> h × tan θ1 + L × tan θ2.”, where the main relationship can be shown as 2a - 2h tanθ1 - 2α ≧ 2L tanθ2, where 2L tanθ2 is the beam width, 2a is the street width, and h is the height of the elements, where the beam width can be dependent on the position of the elements through the street width dimensions since a greater street width creates smaller elements and on the height of the elements). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the beam width control in Ikegami to include the position and height of the chip dependences as taught by Iinuma.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to concentrate laser beam energy to the desired scribing or street location instead of also through the wafer, where this can improve the quality of the processing, as stated by Iinuma, Page 8, Para. 2 from end, “A phenomenon such as poor processing formation is caused by the fact that each of the structures formed on the surface of the silicon substrate 10 focuses the laser beam LB on the surface structure when the laser beam LB is condensed inside the substrate. Since the laser beam LB is no longer transmitted or the laser beam LB is not transmitted through the structure, desired energy can be transmitted to the condensing point, and it is not generated.”.
Further, Mori discloses, in the similar field of laser processing (Abstract, “This laser processing device”), where a similar wafer and laser scribing process occurs (Page 4, Para. 3, “The laser processing unit 100 performs laser processing of the substrate 10. For example, the laser processing unit 100 performs laser processing (so-called laser dicing) for dividing the substrate 10 into a plurality of chips.”), where an inspection method is used during this scribing (Page 10, Para. 1-2, “inspection processing unit 28 moves the substrate… In this way, the processing trace 16 extending in the X-axis direction is inspected over the entire substrate 10. In the inspection, the presence / absence of chipping as well as the presence / absence of deviation between the processing trace 16 and the planned dividing line 13 are inspected.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the scribing process of modified Ikegami to be part of an inspection method as taught by Mori.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to inspect the diced substrate afterwards in order to ensure that the streets are located at the correct places and that the amount of chips produced is correct, as stated by Mori, Page 10, Para. 2, “In this way, the processing trace 16 extending in the X-axis direction is inspected over the entire substrate 10. In the inspection, the presence / absence of chipping as well as the presence / absence of deviation between the processing trace 16 and the planned dividing line 13 are inspected.”.
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (US 20020050489 A1, hereinafter Ikegami) in view of Iinuma et al. (JP 2006173520 A1, hereinafter Iinuma) in further view of Isobe et al. (EP 1326273 B1, hereinafter Isobe).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ikegami teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, as set forth above.
Modified Ikegami does not disclose:
wherein the control unit is configured to: calculate the slit width based at least in part on a street width of the street.
However, Isobe discloses, in the similar field of using laser light to create modified regions within a substrate (Para. 0048, “an insulating film or a semiconductor film viewed from above the substrate, which is obtained while designing, is stored in a storage device. A scanning path of laser light is determined based on the pattern information and a width in a direction perpendicular to the scanning direction of the laser beam of laser light.”), where the control unit is able to calculate the slit width based at least in part on the street width of the street (Para. 0124, “In Fig. 6, the computer 160 controls the width of the slit 155 such that a laser beam width can be changed in accordance with the mask pattern information.”, where depending on the desired street width within the mask pattern, the slit can have its width controlled based on that desired street width with the computer or control unit). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit in modified Ikegami to include the slit width control depending on the desired street width as taught by Isobe.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to ensure that a computer designed mask with specific street widths can be produced with the laser beam, as the control unit is able to adjust the width of the slit in accordance to the virtual mask, as stated by Isobe, Para. 0124, “In Fig. 6, the computer 160 controls the width of the slit 155 such that a laser beam width can be changed in accordance with the mask pattern information.”.
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (US 20020050489 A1, hereinafter Ikegami) in view of Iinuma et al. (JP 2006173520 A1, hereinafter Iinuma) in further view of Isobe et al. (EP 1326273 B1, hereinafter Isobe) and Fukuoka et al. (WO 2020009079 A1, hereinafter Fukuoka).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ikegami teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, as set forth above.
Modified Ikegami does not disclose:
wherein the control unit is configured to: determine whether the laser light is blocked by structure with the calculated slit width; and
when the laser light is blocked by structure with the calculated slit width, re-calculate the slit width based on structural information of the structure.
However, Fukuoka discloses, in the similar field of laser light creating modified regions within a substrate (Page 2, Para. 2, “The laser head includes a laser light source that emits a processing laser beam for forming a modified region inside the wafer”), where the control unit can determine whether the laser light is blocked by the structure with the calculated slit width (Page 11, Para. 2 from end, “Next, as shown in FIG. 13, the control unit 250 determines whether or not the AF laser beam LB1 interferes with the device unit 11 (step S13). Here, as shown in FIG. 14B, the first focal point P1 of the laser beam L is arranged at the processing depth D1, and the spot of the AF laser beam LB1 is formed on the surface 3 in the street ST. In the initial state of the arrangement, it is determined whether or not the AF laser light LB1 interferes with the device unit 11.”, where device unit 11 is the structures that protrude out of the wafer) and recalculate the slit width when the laser light is blocked based on the structural information of the structure (Page 11, last Para., “Subsequently, as illustrated in FIG. 13, when the result of the determination in step S13 is that the AF laser light LB1 interferes with the device unit 11 (step S13: YES), the control unit 250 sets the second focus point P2 The position is adjusted (step S14). Here, as shown in FIG. 15A, the distance between the first focus point P1 and the second focus point P2 is maintained at the distance L12 (that is, the modulation pattern including the focus position changing pattern). ), The second focal point P2 is moved so that the AF laser beam LB1 does not interfere with the device unit 11. For example, in the examples of FIG. 14B and FIG. 15A, the AF laser beam LB1 is the second laser beam LB1 when the second focal point P2 is separated from the surface 3 outside the processing target object 1. Spreading from the converging point P <b> 2 interferes with the device section 11. Therefore, here, the position of the second focal point P2 is adjusted such that the second focal point P2 is brought closer to the surface 3 and the spot of the AF laser beam LB1 on the surface 3 is reduced. Accordingly, the first focal point P1 also shifts from the processing expected position M1 to the side opposite to the front surface 3.”, where depending on the structural information or information that the structures 11 block the laser light, the slit width is changed as the beam width is changed during the focal point movement; where this focal point movement is shown in Fig. 14b to Fig. 15a, where the beam width is changed in order to not interfere with the structures 11). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit in modified Ikegami to include the features as taught by Fukuoka.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to prevent modulation patterns from forming due to the interference of the laser light with structures, where this can be prevented through adjusting the beam width through the focal point movement, as stated by Fukuoka, Page 13, Para. 5 from end, “When the laser beam LB1 interferes with the device section 11, the spatial light modulator is caused to present a modulation pattern including the condensing position changing pattern. For this reason, the position of the first focal point P1 of the laser beam L is adjusted to a desired processing depth D1 while preventing the AF laser beam LB1 from interfering with the device section 11, and high-precision AF processing is performed. It becomes possible.”.
Claims 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (US 20020050489 A1, hereinafter Ikegami) in view of Iinuma et al. (JP 2006173520 A1, hereinafter Iinuma) in further view of Isobe et al. (EP 1326273 B1, hereinafter Isobe) and O’Brien et al. (DE 10296913 T5, hereinafter O’Brien).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ikegami teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, as set forth above, discloses wherein the control unit is configured to: calculate a first value for the slit width based at least in part on structural information of the structure (Teaching from Iinuma, Page 8, Para. 3 from end, “This value is 75 μm or less, which is the distance from the breaking line to the bump on one side, and can satisfy the relationship of a ≧ h × tan θ1 + L × tan θ2 + α, at least the relationship of a> h × tan θ1 + L × tan θ2.”, where the main relationship can be shown as 2a - 2h tanθ1 - 2α ≧ 2L tanθ2, where 2L tanθ2 is the beam width, 2a is the street width, and h is the height of the elements, where the beam width can be dependent on the position of the elements through the street width dimensions since a greater street width creates smaller elements and on the height of the elements).
Modified Ikegami does not disclose:
and adopt a smaller value of the first value and the second value for the slit width.
However, Isobe discloses, in the similar field of using laser light to create modified regions within a substrate (Para. 0048, “an insulating film or a semiconductor film viewed from above the substrate, which is obtained while designing, is stored in a storage device. A scanning path of laser light is determined based on the pattern information and a width in a direction perpendicular to the scanning direction of the laser beam of laser light.”), where the control unit is able to calculate the slit width based at least in part on the street width of the street (Para. 0124, “In Fig. 6, the computer 160 controls the width of the slit 155 such that a laser beam width can be changed in accordance with the mask pattern information.”, where depending on the desired street width within the mask pattern, the slit can have its width controlled based on that desired street width with the computer or control unit). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit in modified Ikegami to include the slit width control depending on the desired street width as taught by Isobe.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to ensure that a computer designed mask with specific street widths can be produced with the laser beam, as the control unit is able to adjust the width of the slit in accordance to the virtual mask, as stated by Isobe, Para. 0124, “In Fig. 6, the computer 160 controls the width of the slit 155 such that a laser beam width can be changed in accordance with the mask pattern information.”.
Further, O’Brien discloses, in the similar field of laser light to create modified regions within a substrate (Page 2, Para. 5 from end, “Conventional laser cutting uses successively overlapping points of successive laser pulses to continuously scan a complete cutting path. Numerous full runs are performed until the target is severed along the entire cutting path.”), where it is disclosed that a smaller beam width can provide advantages over larger beam widths (Page 6, Para. 3 from end, “The beam positioning system 30 preferably has an alignment accuracy of better than about 3-5 microns so that the center of the laser spot is within about 3-5 microns of a preferred cutting path, especially for laser beam spot sizes such as 10-15 microns. For smaller spot sizes, the alignment accuracy can preferably be even better. The accuracy may be less accurate for larger point sizes.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the beam width selection in modified Ikegami to be a selection of a smaller beam width size as taught by O’Brien, where Isobe and Iinuma both teach beam width selection processes and O’Brien discloses how choosing a smaller value for beam width can have an advantage.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to have greater accuracy over the laser beam positioning, as stated by O’Brien, Page 6, Para. 3 from end, “The beam positioning system 30 preferably has an alignment accuracy of better than about 3-5 microns…For smaller spot sizes, the alignment accuracy can preferably be even better. The accuracy may be less accurate for larger point sizes.”.
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 KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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 on 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
02/03/2026
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761