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 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 laser beam outputter configured to cause a laser beam to travel in a direction of processing to process a semiconductor” in claim 1.
“a first laser beam outputter configured to output the first laser” in claim 3.
“a second laser beam outputter configured to output the second laser” in claim 4.
“a vibrator configured to physically vibrate an optical element” in claim 4.
“an inputter configured to receive a manipulation command” in claim 7.
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.
“a laser beam outputter” (claim 1) is interpreted as “a laser oscillator 310, a vibrator 320, and an optical element 330”. ([0033] of instant publication application).
“a first laser beam outputter” (claim 3) is interpreted as “a laser oscillator, a vibrator, and an optical element”. ([0033] of instant publication application).
“a second laser beam outputter” (claim 3) is interpreted as “a laser oscillator, a vibrator, and an optical element”. ([0033] of instant publication application).
“a vibrator” (claim 4) is interpreted as “a resonance motor” (para.0046 of instant publication application).
“an inputter” (claim 7) is interpreted as “the inputter 100 may include various types of hardware, software, or firmware input means”.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grapov (WO 2017139769 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2009/0057282).
Regarding claim 1, Grapov discloses “a laser beam irradiation device” (fig.1) “for processing a semiconductor” (intended use), comprising:
“a laser beam outputter” (112) configured to cause “a laser beam” (111) “to travel in a direction of processing to process a semiconductor” (workpiece 102. MPEP 2115 with respect to a semiconductor), and “to vibrate the laser beam at a constant amplitude in a direction of vibration different from the direction of processing” ([0027], all , in particular In an embodiment of the cutting head 110, movable mirrors 132, 134 move the beam 118 within only a relatively small field of view (e.g., less than 30 x 30 mm) by pivoting the beam 118 within a scan angle a of less than 10° and more particularly about 1-2°, thereby allowing the beam to wobble. Fig.1 shows the cutting direction or movement of the laser beam 106. Fig.2C shows example of a constant amplitude in a direction of vibration (i.e., move in a zig zag direction or width directions) different from the direction of the processing (i.e., see arrow)); and
“a condenser lens” (the focus lens 142) “configured to form a laser spot on the semiconductor” (a focus lens 142 for focusing and delivering a focused beam 118 to the workpiece 102. MPEP 2115 with respect to a semiconductor), “the laser spot traveling in the direction of processing and vibrating in the direction of vibration” (see fig.2C).
Grapov s silent regarding wherein a depth to which the laser beam irradiation device penetrates the object varies according to an angle of incidence of the laser beam.
Huang et al. teaches “a depth to which the laser beam irradiation device penetrates the object varies according to an angle of incidence of the laser beam” (claim 5, i.e., varying the inclination angle includes increasing the inclination angle as a depth of the cut relative to the workpiece increases). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Grapov with Huang et al., by modifying Grapov’s cutting method according to Huang et al.’s cutting method, to increase dimensional precision and without undesirable undercuts (para.0020) as taught by Huang et al.
Regarding claim 10, Grapov discloses “the semiconductor comprises a semiconductor substrate” (MPEP 2115 with respect to semiconductor), and “the condenser lens” (the focus lens 142) outputs “the laser beam at an angle of incidence in a direction perpendicular to a plane of the semiconductor” (118 is at an angle of incidence in a direction perpendicular to a plane of the workpiece 102).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grapov (WO 2017139769 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2009/0057282) as applied in claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Hawryluk et al. (US 2013/0330844 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Grapov discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for “the angle of incidence is greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees” (Hawryluk et al., 132), and “the laser beam outputter” (Hawryluk et al., 120) processes “the substrate by a depth to which the laser beam tilted by the angle of incidence is incident on the semiconductor substrate” (MPEP 2115 with respect to semiconductor substrate. Grapov, [0020], i.e., cutting with different kerf widths). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Grapov with Hawryluk et al., by adding Hawryluk et al.’s the laser beam outputter to Grapov’s laser system to provide different wavelength causing wafer to absorb laser beams to a degree sufficient to heat the water to annealing temperature (para.0066) as taught by Hawryluk et al.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grapov (WO 2017139769 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2009/0057282) as applied in claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Manor (US 6,562,698).
Regarding claim 4, modified Grapov discloses “the laser beam outputter” (Grapov, 112, 133 and 134) further comprises: “a laser oscillator” (Grapov, 112) configured to oscillate and output the laser beam; and “a vibrator” (Grapov, 133 and 134) “configured to physically vibrate an optical element to vibrate the laser beam, which is incident from the laser oscillator, in the direction of vibration” (Grapov, See fig.2C for vibration or oscillation of the laser beam in the direction of travel. [0027], all, in particular In an embodiment of the cutting head 110, movable mirrors 132, 134 move the beam 118 within only a relatively small field of view (e.g., less than 30 x 30 mm) by pivoting the beam 118 within a scan angle a of less than 10° and more particularly about 1-2°, thereby allowing the beam to wobble). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Grapov with Manor, by modifying Grapov’s laser processing according to Manor’s laser processing, to provide laser beam with different wavelength for cut through the substrate based on the desired process (abstract) as taught by Manor.
Regarding claim 5, modified Grapov discloses “the laser oscillator” (Grapov, 112) and “the condenser lens” (Grapov, 142) are fixed not to vibrate, and “the optical element” (movable mirrors 132, 134) makes a simple harmonic motion due to “a driving force of a motor of the vibrator” (Grapov, The movable mirrors 132, 134 may be galvanometer mirrors that are movable by galvo motors, which are capable of reversing direction quickly. In other embodiments, other mechanisms may be used to move the mirrors such as stepper motors.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grapov (WO 2017139769 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2009/0057282) as applied in claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Park (US 2022/0146682).
Regarding claim 6, Grapov discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for the optical element comprises a horizontal mirror, and the motor comprises at least one of an ultrasound motor and a resonance motor.
Park teaches “the optical element comprises a horizontal mirror, and the motor comprises at least one of an ultrasound motor and a resonance motor” ([0107] Also, the optic unit 200 according to an embodiment may include various optic means to reflect laser beams. For example, the optic unit 200 may include a mirror, a resonance scanner, a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) mirror, a voice coil motor (VCM), a polygonal mirror, a rotating mirror, or a galvano mirror, and the like, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto. [0352] According to an embodiment, the collimation component 210 may serve to collimate a beam emitted from a laser emitting unit 100, and the steering component 230 may serve to steer a collimated beam emitted from the collimation component 210. [0241] Referring to FIG. 14, a steering component 230 according to an embodiment may be disposed in a direction in which a laser beam emitted from a laser emitting unit 100 travels. The steering component 230 may adjust the direction of a laser beam. The steering component 230 may adjust an angle between a laser beam and an optical axis of a laser light source.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Grapov with Park, by replacing Grappov’s optical element with Park’s optical element, to allow repetitive scanning workpiece (para.0309) as taught by Park.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grapov (WO 2017139769 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2009/0057282) as applied in claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Costin, Jr. et al. (US 2015/0298253).
Regarding claim 9, Grapov discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for the optical element comprises a pair of polygonal mirrors each having a plurality of reflective surfaces, wherein the pair of polygonal mirrors rotate in different directions.
Costin, Jr. et al. teaches “the optical element comprises a pair of polygonal mirrors each having a plurality of reflective surfaces, wherein the pair of polygonal mirrors rotate in different directions” ([0028] In a further embodiment, the first and second mirrors 36, 38 can be replaced with larger mirrors to reduce the laser spot size. The mirrors 36, 38 may be flat mirrors and can have a variety of shapes, including polygonal). One skilled in the art would have found it obivous to substitute Grapov with Costin, Jr. et al. are both recognized by the art for the same purpose of directing laser. MPEP 2144.06.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “drawing objection, 35 USC 112b” on page 5 of remark.
In response, the amendment to claims overcome drawing objection and 35 USC 112b. Thus, drawing objection and 35 USC 112b have been withdrawn.
With respect to 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, the amendment to claims overcome the rejections. The amendment to claims changed the scope of invention. However, examiner has provided additional reference in current rejection with respect to the amended portion.
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 JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights