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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-6 in the reply filed on February 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 limitations are as follows:
“a support portion configured to support the object” in claim 1 further defined by the applicant’s specification as a “stage” [0040]. Therefore, the support portion will be interpreted as a stage.
“a moving mechanism configured to move at least one of the support portion and the laser irradiation unit” in Claim 1 further defined by the applicant’s specification as a “drive unit” [0118]. Therefore, the moving mechanism will be interpreted as a drive unit in light of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-6 are 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 1 features the limitation “a crack extending from the modified region formed at the first converging point and a crack extending from second converging point are not connected with each other” which muddies the intended scope of the claim. Although the desired effect of this limitation is clear, the configuration of the controls for the claimed invention to achieve the desired effect is not clear since the specification simultaneously implies that the difference in x position of the convergence points achieves this function ([0043]) as well as that alignment of the convergences points in the x direction provides this function ([0016]).
Similarly, claim 6 features the limitation “a crack extending from the modified region formed at the fifth converging point and a crack extending from the modified region at the sixth converging point are not connected with each other.”
Additionally, Claim 5 presents the limitation “in the first process, by controlling the laser irradiation unit and the moving mechanism, the control unit irradiates the object with the laser light while forming a fifth converging point of the laser light and a sixth converging point of the laser light located closer to the incident surface side of the object than the fifth converging point and at the same time relatively moving the fifth converging point and the sixth converging point along the first line” It is unclear whether this limitation is intended to occur at the same time as the first process mentioned in Claim 1 when the claim limitations seem to presented as a separate step which makes the intended scope of the claims unclear. Revision for the sake of clarity is recommended. It is not clear whether the first process “converging point” of claim 1 is further specified to be two separate converging points in claim 5, or whether claim 5 requires 3 total converging points in the first process.
The remaining claims are rejected in light of their dependence of Claim 1.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura (US 2008/0000884 A1) in view of Sawabe (US 2015/0034617 A1) and Park (WO 2017073907 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
350
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
650
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
634
636
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
556
614
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
634
644
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Sugiura teaches a laser processing device for forming a modified region by irradiating an object with laser light, the laser processing device comprising:
a support portion (“mount table” [0122]) configured to support the object;
a laser irradiation unit ([0080-0081]) configured to irradiate the object supported by the support portion with the laser light (See Figure 2);
a moving mechanism (required for “Moving rate of the mount table” as described in [0072]) configured to move at least one of the support portion and the laser irradiation unit (¶132 “moving speed of the laser light converging points along the lines to cut 5”) such that a converging point (“a convergence point” [0014] Figure 2 Element P) of the laser light relatively moves with respect to the object; and a control unit (the presence of a control unit is implied by the method as described by Sugiura, but it is not explicitly disclosed) configured to control the laser irradiation unit and the moving mechanism, wherein a first line extending along a first direction and a second line extending along a second direction intersecting the first direction (see grid in Fig 14) and extending beyond the first line when viewed from a direction intersecting an incident surface of the laser light are set in the object, and the control unit performs, by controlling the laser irradiation unit and the moving mechanism, a first process of forming the modified region along the first line by irradiating the object with the laser light while relatively moving the converging point (“a convergence point” [0014] Figure 2 Element P) along the first line (see M1 in Fig 16b [0109]), performs, after the first process, by controlling the laser irradiation unit and the moving mechanism, a second process of forming the modified region (“modified region M2” [0110] Figure 16b) along the second line (all of the lines 5 are cut, but the order of steps is not specified. Nonetheless, at least one line in one direction must be cut after at least one line in the other direction – not all of the lines are cut simultaneously Shown in Figure 14) by irradiating the object with the laser light while forming a first converging point of the laser light and a second converging point (“Each modified region is formed [with a respective] convergence point” [0014] Figure 2 Element P) of the laser light located closer to an incident surface side of the object than the first converging point… and performs, after the second process, by controlling the laser irradiation unit and the moving mechanism, a third process of forming the modified region (“modified region M3” [0111] Figure 17a) along the second line at a third position between a first position of the first converging point and a second position of the second converging point in a direction intersecting the incident surface (shown in Figure 17a) and forming a crack (“in the step of forming the third modified region, a fracture bridging at least the first and second modified regions is generated” [0013]) over the modified region formed at the first position and the modified region formed at the second position by irradiating the object with the laser light while forming a third converging point (“Each modified region is formed [with a respective] convergence point” [0014] Figure 2 Element P such that the third modified region corresponds with a third convergence point) of the laser light at the third position and at the same time relatively moving the third converging point (“convergence point is relatively moved along a line to cut 5” Abstract) along the second line.
Although the presence of a control unit configured to control the laser irradiation unit and the moving mechanism, is implied by Sugiura, it is not explicitly disclosed
Sawabe does teach (US 2015/0034617A1) teaches a laser processing device (“laser processing apparatus” Abstract) for forming a modified region by irradiating an object (“workpiece” [0010]) with laser light (“laser irradiation” [0010]) , the laser processing device comprising: a support portion (“movable support base” [0030 ]Figure 1 Element 42 ) configured to support the object (“workpiece” [0010]); a laser irradiation unit (“laser beam irradiation unit” [0031] Figure 1 Element 5) configured to irradiate the object supported by the support portion with the laser light; a moving mechanism (“drive source such as a pulsed motor” [0030] Figure 1 Element 432) configured to move at least one of the support portion (“moving” [0030]) and the laser irradiation unit such that a converging point (“light focus point” [0032]) of the laser light relatively moves with respect to the object; and a control unit (“control unit” Figure 6 Element 8 [0041]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Sugiura with the control unit of Sawabe in order to “store the control program…store an arithmetic result” and enable “input” [0041] from the user.
Furthermore, Sugiura as modified by Sawabe does not teach simultaneous convergence points or moving more than one convergence point at the same time, so the combination does not teach:
at the same time relatively moving the first converging point and the second converging point along the second line so that a crack extending from the modified region formed at the first converging point and a crack extending from the modified region formed at the second converging point are not connected to each other
However, Park does teach a “laser processing device” (Abstract) with multiple simultaneous convergence points (“multiple focusing points at different depths “Abstract) in which the points are “relatively moving …along a line [of the object] …to be processed” Abstract Shown in Figure 2a and 2b Elements P1 and P2))
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Sugiura as modified by Sawabe with the multiple simultaneous convergence points in order to eliminate the need for “repeat the process several times…[and] thereby reducing the time required” [0007].
As to the cracks not connecting, the apparatus (as modified by Park) produces two convergence points separated in the x direction, and is thus understood to perform this function according to the instant specification at [0043].
Regarding Claim 2: Sugiura as modified by Sawabe and Park further teaches that the control unit (Sawabe “control unit” Figure 6 Element 8 [0041]) positions the first converging point (Park Figure 2 P1) front of the second converging point (Park Figure 2a Element P2) in the relative movement direction of the first converging point and the second converging point (shown by an arrow in Park Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 4: Sugiura as modified by Sawabe and Park further teaches that in the third processing (Sugiura formation of the third “modified region M3” [0111] Figure 17a), by controlling the laser irradiation unit and the moving mechanism, the control unit irradiates the object with the laser light while forming the third converging point (“Each modified region is formed [with a respective] convergence point” [0014] and a fourth converging point (the convergence point of M4 Figure 17 b) of the laser light located closer to the incident surface side than the third converging point and at the same time relatively moving the third converging point and the fourth converging point along the second line (Park- the movement would occur for the third and fourth convergence point as with the first and second as shown in Park “multiple focusing points at different depths “Abstract) in which the points are “relatively moving …along a line [of the object] …to be processed” Abstract Shown in Figure 2a and 2b Elements P1 and P2)).
Regarding claim 5:
The obvious combination of Sugiura and Park is to perform the method disclosed by Sigiura, in the same order, with the modification by Park that 2 rows are performed at a time. Sugiura discloses forming the modified regions in the following order: M1, M2, M3, M4 (see figs 15-17, [0109]-[0112]). The Examiner’s proposed combination is to form regions M1 and M2 simultaneously, followed by M3 and M4 simultaneously, and then M5. Sugiura does not teach any difference between working in the x direction and the y direction (see Fig 20). Thus, the same process is repeated for the second direction (along the second line). It is assumed that regions M1-M5 are formed in one direction (along the first line), followed by all modified regions M1-M5 in the second direction (along the second line).
Thus regarding claim 5, Sugiura as modified by Sawabe and Park further teaches that in the first process, by controlling the laser irradiation unit and the moving mechanism, the control unit irradiates the object with the laser light while forming a fifth converging point (Sugiura: to form M1, see Figs 16-17, [0109]) of the laser light and a sixth converging point (Sugiura: to form M2, see Figs 16-17, [0102]) of the laser light located closer to the incident surface side (Sigiura: M2 is closer to the surface than M1, see Figs 16-17) of the object than the fifth converging point and at the same time (M1 and M2 are formed simultaneously, as taught by Park and described in the combination above) relatively moving the fifth converging point and the sixth converging point along the first line.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura (US 2008/0000884 A1) in view of Sawabe (US 2015/0034617 A1) and Matsumoto (JP 2000005892A):
Regarding claim 1: As described above, Sugiura as modified by Sawabe teaches all limitations of claim 1, except:
at the same time relatively moving the first converging point and the second converging point along the second line so that a crack extending from the modified region formed at the first converging point and a crack extending from the modified region formed at the second converging point are not connected to each other
However, Matsumoto does teach a laser processing system wherein a control unit (“an adaptive optical system that can … control the…[invention]” [0009]) causes the first converging point (Figure A F1) and the second converging point (Figure A F2) to coincide (Shown in Figure A) with each other in the relative movement direction of the first converging point and the second converging point and to relatively move at the same time ([0006] “multiple focal points”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Sugiura as modified by Sawabe and Park with the coinciding converging points of Matsumoto in order to “set an optimum processing condition across the entire processing width, and improve processing accuracy and processing efficiency” (Abstract)
As to the cracking, the combination is understood to meet the limitation because the focal points are aligned in the x direction as taught by Matsumoto and separated in the z direction, as taught by Sugiura, as understood from the instant specification at [0016].
Regarding Claim 3: Sugiura as modified by Sawabe and Matsumoto teaches:
a control unit (Matsumoto:“an adaptive optical system capable of variably controlling the…[invention]” [00ll]) causes the first converging point (Matsumoto: Figure A F1) and the second converging point (Matsumoto: Figure A F2) to coincide (Shown in Matsumoto Figure A) with each other in the relative movement direction of the first converging point and the second converging point.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Topaz Elliot can be reached at (571) 270-5851. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761