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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2023, 12/05/2024, 05/08/2025, 11/25/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “20” as shown in Fig.1A and “110” as shown in Fig.1B but not mentioned in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “light detector” as recited in claims 12 & 18, and “first region” & “second region” as recited in claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 14-18, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “said laser” in line 1. This should read “said pulsed laser” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 2).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the burst of a limited number of pulses” in line 2. It is understood that this limitation refers to the limitation “a burst of a limited number of pulses” recited previously in claim 2 (lines 1-2). Therefore, the limitation “the burst of a limited number of pulses” should read “the burst of the limited number of pulses” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 2 (lines 1-2).
Claim 3 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 2.
Claim 14 (line 1), claim 15 (line 1), claim 17 (lines 2-3), claim 18 (lines 2-3) recite the limitation “said pulsed laser beam”, and claims 16 (lines 2-3) recites the limitation “the pulsed laser beam”. These limitations should read “said scanned pulsed laser beam” or “the scanned pulsed laser beam” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 13 (line 4).
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the package” in line 10. This should read “the semiconductor package” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 20 (line 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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:
“light detector located beneath the sample and configured to sense said pulsed laser beam after said pulsed laser beam has cut through the sample” in claim 12 (lines 1-3), “light detector” in claim 18 (line 2) & “light detector detects that a desired cross section has been made” in claim 18 (lines 4-5). These limitations use generic placeholder “detector” (Prong A); the term “detector” is modified by functional language “configured to sense said pulsed laser beam after said pulsed laser beam has cut through the sample” / “detects that a desired cross section has been made” (Prong B); and the term “detector” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application does not provide description for the structure of the “light detector”, see details below in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section.
“gas extractor configured to direct a plasma plume from ablation of the sample to a gas analyzer” in claim 11 (lines 1-2). This limitation uses generic placeholder “extractor” (Prong A); the term “extractor” is modified by functional language “configured to direct a plasma plume from ablation of the sample to a gas analyzer” (Prong B); and the term “extractor” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application does not provide description for the structure of the “gas extractor”, see details below in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “gas extractor configured to direct a plasma plume from ablation of the sample to a gas analyzer” in lines 1-2. Claim limitation “gas extractor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, Par.0024 of the Instant Application discloses: “the system includes a spectrometer to analyze the plasma plume as extracted by the plume extractor 216. The spectrum analysis of the plasma plume is useful to determine the material being ablated. This can be used for ablation end point detection.”. Therefore, based on the Specification of the Instant Application, the spectrometer is the gas analyzer, not the gas extractor that is configured to direct a plasma plume from ablation of the sample as required by claim 11. And the structure of the gas extractor is not described in the Drawings or in the Specification of the Instant Application. The Drawings shows the fume extractor 216 in Fig.1B of the Instant Application; however, the fume extractor 216 is represented by a box; therefore, it is unclear the structure of the fume extractor. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “light detector located beneath the sample and configured to sense said pulsed laser beam after said pulsed laser beam has cut through the sample” in lines 1-3. Claim limitation “light detector” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, Par.0025 of the Instant Application discloses: “According to another aspect, the system includes a light detector, or a mirror and a light detector, located underneath the sample and protected by a layer of liquid (e.g., a depth of > 5mm) to prevent ablation of the detector/mirror/window. The light detector or mirror/light detector operates to detect the end point of a cross section.”. Therefore, based on the Specification of the Instant Application, there are light detector and mirror, they are two components, mirror is not light detector. And the structure of the light detector is not described in the Drawings or in the Specification of the Instant Application. The Drawings do not show any component located beneath the sample and configured to sense said pulsed laser beam. To one of ordinary skill in the art, light detector can be several things, for example: sensor, photosensor, photodetector, camera, photodiode, etc. Therefore, it is unclear what the light detector is since the written description and the Drawings fail to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “light detector” in line 2 and “light detector detects that a desired cross section has been made” in lines 4-5. Claim limitation “light detector” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, Par.0025 of the Instant Application discloses: “According to another aspect, the system includes a light detector, or a mirror and a light detector, located underneath the sample and protected by a layer of liquid (e.g., a depth of > 5mm) to prevent ablation of the detector/mirror/window. The light detector or mirror/light detector operates to detect the end point of a cross section.”. Therefore, according to the Specification of the Instant Application, there are light detector and mirror, they are two components, mirror is not light detector. And the structure of the light detector is not described in the Drawings or in the Specification of the Instant Application. The Drawings do not show any component located beneath the sample and configured to sense said pulsed laser beam. To one of ordinary skill in the art, light detector can be several things, for example: sensor, photosensor, photodetector, camera, photodiode, etc. Therefore, it is unclear what the light detector is since the written description and the Drawings fail to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-12, 17-18, 20 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 (lines 3-4) and claim 20 (lines 4-5) recite the limitation “a scan head configured to scan said pulsed laser in two directions perpendicular to the laser beam to create a scanned laser beam”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because it is unclear how a scan head can scan the pulsed laser, it is noted that the scan head can scan the laser beam, not the laser. Therefore, it is unclear how the scan head configured to scan said pulsed laser in two directions perpendicular to the laser beam to create a scanned laser beam. For examination purposes, this limitation will be treated as a scan head configured to scan pulsed laser beam in orthogonal directions at the sample surface because it is noted that the Instant Application defines “The scan head 122 comprises two actuated mirrors to scan the laser beam in orthogonal directions at the sample surface.” in Par.0016.
Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the liquid” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “liquid” recited previously. It is noted that claim 9 recites the limitation “liquid bath” previously in lines 1 and 2 of claim 9; however, the “liquid bath” is different from the “liquid”.
Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 9.
Claim 11 and claim 12 appear to delete a period at the end of each claim. It is unclear what it means by deleting period at the end of each claim. Claim 11 and claim 12 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C.112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because each of claim 11 and claim 12 does not have a period at the end of the claim. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 17 recites the limitation “milling a first region completely through the package with said pulsed laser beam to allow liquid to flow into said first region to liquid from below the package” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Specifically, it is unclear what is meant by “allow liquid to flow into said first region to liquid from below the package”. Does it mean “allow liquid to flow into said first region to liquid that is positioned/located below the package”, or “allow liquid to flow into said first region and to below the package”, or “allow liquid to flow into said first region from below the package”? It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as milling a first region completely through the package with said pulsed laser beam to allow liquid to flow into said first region and to below the package.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the sample” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “sample” recited previously. It is noted that claim 18 depends on claim 13, however, there is no “sample” recited previously in claim 18 or claim 13.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “said sample” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “sample” recited previously. Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitation “said sample” recited in claim 20 (line 6) refers to the “semiconductor package” recited previously in claim 20 (line 1), or the limitation “said sample” recited in claim 20 (line 6) refers to a different component.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “gas extractor configured to direct a plasma plume from ablation of the sample to a gas analyzer” in lines 1-2. Claim limitation “gas extractor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, Par.0024 of the Instant Application discloses: “the system includes a spectrometer to analyze the plasma plume as extracted by the plume extractor216. The spectrum analysis of the plasma plume is useful to determine the material being ablated. This can be used for ablation end point detection.”. Therefore, spectrometer is the gas analyzer, not the gas extractor that is configured to direct a plasma plume from ablation of the sample as required by claim 11. And the structure of the gas extractor is not described in the Drawings or in the Specification of the Instant Application. The Drawings shows the fume extractor 216 in Fig.1B of the Instant Application; however, the fume extractor 216 is represented by a box shape; therefore, it is unclear what the structure of the fume extractor. Therefore, it is unclear what the gas extractor is and how the gas extractor is configured to direct a plasma plume from ablation of the sample as required by claim 11 since the written description and the Drawings fail to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “light detector located beneath the sample and configured to sense said pulsed laser beam after said pulsed laser beam has cut through the sample” in lines 1-3. Claim limitation “light detector” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, Par.0025 of the Instant Application discloses: “According to another aspect, the system includes a light detector, or a mirror and a light detector, located underneath the sample and protected by a layer of liquid (e.g., a depth of > 5mm) to prevent ablation of the detector/mirror/window. The light detector or mirror/light detector operates to detect the end point of a cross section.”. Therefore, according to the Specification of the Instant Application, there are light detector and mirror, they are two components, mirror is not light detector. And the structure of the light detector is not described in the Drawings or in the Specification of the Instant Application. The Drawings do not show any component located beneath the sample and configured to sense said pulsed laser beam. To one of ordinary skill in the art, light detector can be several things, for example: sensor, photosensor, photodetector, camera, photodiode, etc. Therefore, it is unclear what the light detector is since the written description and the Drawings fail to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “light detector” in line 2 and “light detector detects that a desired cross section has been made” in lines 4-5. Claim limitation “light detector” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, Par.0025 of the Instant Application discloses: “According to another aspect, the system includes a light detector, or a mirror and a light detector, located underneath the sample and protected by a layer of liquid (e.g., a depth of > 5mm) to prevent ablation of the detector/mirror/window. The light detector or mirror/light detector operates to detect the end point of a cross section.”. Therefore, according to the Specification of the Instant Application, there are light detector and mirror, they are two components, mirror is not light detector. And the structure of the light detector is not described in the Drawings or in the Specification of the Instant Application. The Drawings do not show any component located beneath the sample and configured to sense said pulsed laser beam. To one of ordinary skill in the art, light detector can be several things, for example: sensor, photosensor, photodetector, camera, photodiode, etc. Therefore, it is unclear what the light detector is since the written description and the Drawings fail to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claim 18 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hadjikhani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0118695 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hadjikhani discloses an apparatus (laser apparatus 100, Hadjikhani Fig.3A) for milling of a sample (IC package 10, Hadjikhani Fig.3A) with a laser beam (laser beam L, Hadjikhani Fig.3A) (Hadjikhani Par.0018 discloses: “the laser cutting includes directing a laser beam along a cut line of the integrated circuit package. The cut line defines a removable portion, to cut along the cut line.”) comprising:
a pulsed laser (laser source 102, Hadjikhani Fig.3A) (the laser source 102 is pulsed laser because Hadjikhani Par.0037 discloses: “the laser source 102 is a femtosecond laser source 102, which emits optical pulses with a duration on the order of femtoseconds”),
a scan head (scan head 104, Hadjikhani Fig.3A) configured to scan said pulsed laser (see the U.S.C. 112(b) Claims Rejections section above for the rejection of the limitation “scan head configured to scan said pulsed laser in two directions perpendicular to the laser beam to create a scanned laser beam”) in two directions (two directions as shown in Hadjikhani annotated Fig.3A below or as shown by the cut line C in Hadjikhani Fig.5B) perpendicular to the laser beam (laser beam, Hadjikhani annotated Fig.3A below) to create a scanned laser beam (two directions as shown in Hadjikhani annotated Fig.3A below or as shown by the cut line C in Hadjikhani Fig.5B perpendicular to the laser beam because Hadjikhani Par.0043 discloses “the laser beam L is directed along the cut line C at an angle that is perpendicular to the cut line C” and Hadjikhani Par.0046 discloses: “the directing only includes directing the laser beam L by the mirrors 110 and lens 114, and the IC package 10 and laser stage 106 remain stationary”; therefore, Hadjikhani discloses the scan head 104 configured to scan said pulsed laser in two directions perpendicular to the laser beam to create a scanned laser beam. It is noted that the Instant Application defines “The scan head 122 comprises two actuated mirrors to scan the laser beam in orthogonal directions at the sample surface.” in Par.0016. Therefore, the prior art Hadjikhani and the Instant Application are similar), and
an F-theta lens (lens 114, Hadjikhani Fig.3A) (lens 114 is F-theta lens because Hadjikhani Par.0038 discloses: “The mirrors 110 direct the beam L to a lens 114, such as an f-theta lens”) configured to focus said scanned laser beam onto said sample (IC package 10, Hadjikhani Fig.3A) (Hadjikhani Par.0038 discloses: “One or more mirrors 110, such as galvo-mirrors, are situated in the scan head 104. The mirrors 110 are positioned on pivots 112 so that the mirrors 110 are rotatable. The mirrors 110 direct the beam L to a lens 114, such as an f-theta lens. The lens 114 directs the laser beam L to a component in the laser stage 106”).
PNG
media_image1.png
697
990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hadjikhani discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also discloses:
wherein said laser (laser source 102, Hadjikhani Fig.3A) is turned on in a burst of a limited number of pulses (Hadjikhani discloses the laser source 102 is turned on in a burst of a limited number of pulses because Hadjikhani Par.0037 discloses: “The laser source 102 can be operated in a burst mode, in one example. In the burst mode, an output from the laser source 102 is limited by the heat capacity of the laser medium. The laser source 102 operates until the medium reaches a maximum acceptable temperature (“burst” or “pulse”), then shuts off and is cooled before repeating the burst”) and wherein the burst of a limited number of pulses is repeated at a fixed repetition rate (“0.5 MHz”, Hadjikhani Par.0037) (Hadjikhani discloses the burst of a limited number of pulses is repeated at a fixed repetition rate of 0.5 MHz, as indicated by Hadjikhani Par.0037: “In one example, the rate of the bursts is 0.5 MHz”).
Regarding claim 4, Hadjikhani discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also discloses:
wherein said pulsed laser (laser source 102, Hadjikhani Fig.3A) has a power of between 1 and 50 watts (Hadjikhani Par.0037 discloses: “In a more particular example, the laser is a 130 femtosecond laser source 102, e.g., it emits optical pulses with a duration of 130 femtoseconds. The laser source 102 can be operated in a burst mode, in one example. In the burst mode, an output from the laser source 102 is limited by the heat capacity of the laser medium. The laser source 102 operates until the medium reaches a maximum acceptable temperature (“burst” or “pulse”), then shuts off and is cooled before repeating the burst. In a particular example, the energy per burst of a laser beam L produced by the laser source is between about 3 and 3.5 micro Jules. In a more particular example, the energy per burst is about 3.2 micro Jules. In one example, the rate of the bursts is 0.5 MHz.”; it is noted that power = energy per burst x burst rate; in this case, when the energy per burst is about 3.2 micro Jules, the power = (3.2 micron J) x (0.5 MHz) = (3.2 x 10-6 J) x (0.5 x 106 s-1) = 1.6 W; using the same equation for calculating power, when the energy per burst of a laser beam L produced by the laser source is between about 3 and 3.5 micro Jules, the power is between about 1.5 watts and 1.75 watts; therefore, the laser source 102 has a power of between about 1.5 watts and 1.75 watts, which is inside of the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, Hadjikhani discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also discloses:
wherein said F-theta lens (lens 114, Hadjikhani Fig.3A) is configured to produce a beam spot size between 10 micron and 100 micron at the sample (IC package 10, Hadjikhani Fig.3A) (Hadjikhani Par.0044 discloses: “As is schematically shown in FIG. 3B, the laser beam L produces a circular spot S with a radius r.”, and Hadjikhani Par.0044 also discloses: “In a particular example, the radius r is about 50 microns and the working distance is about 85.5 mm”; thus, the beam spot size is the diameter, thus, equals to 50 microns times 2; therefore, the beam spot size is 100 micron, which is included in the claimed range. It is noted that Hadjikhani Par.0038 and Fig.3A teaches the F-theta lens 114 directs the laser beam L to the IC package 10, and Hadjikhani Par.0045 discloses: “For example, FIG. 3B shows four spots S. “Scanning” includes producing these successive spots S along the cut line C”; therefore, Hadjikhani discloses the F-theta lens 114 is configured to produce a beam spot size is 100 microns at the IC package 10, which is included in the claimed range).
Claims 13, 16-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nomaru et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0118292 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Nomaru discloses a method of using a pulsed laser (laser beam applying unit 6 includes a laser oscillator 82, Nomaru Figs.1 & 5, Par.0039) (Nomaru Par.0039 discloses: “the laser beam applying unit 6 includes a laser oscillator 82 emitting a pulsed laser beam LB”) to cut a cross section in a package (wafer 10, Nomaru Fig.1) containing one or more integrated circuits (Nomaru Par.0002 discloses: “A wafer having a plurality of devices such as integrated circuits (ICs) and large-scale integrations (LSIs) formed in a front surface of the wafer demarcated by division lines (streets) and is divided into individual device chips by a laser processing apparatus”), comprising:
placing the package (wafer 10, Nomaru Fig.1) in a liquid bath (liquid chamber 41, Nomaru Fig.1) on a movable stage (base table 32 and holding base 31, Nomaru Fig.1) (base table 32 and holding base 31 are movable stage because the base table 32 disposed on the holding base 31, and the holding base 31 is movable, thus, the base table 32 also moves when the holding base 31 moves, specifically, Nomaru Par.0029 discloses: “As illustrated in FIG. 2, a pair of guide rails 23 and 23 extending in the Y-axis direction and holding table moving means 24 moving the holding base 31 in the Y-axis direction along the guide rails 23 and 23 are disposed on an upper surface of the base 21”, and Nomaru Par.0032 discloses: “The base table 32 disposed on the holding base 31”),
exposing the package (wafer 10, Nomaru Fig.1) to a scanned pulsed laser beam (pulsed laser beam LB generated by the laser oscillator 82, Nomaru Figs.1 & 5, Par.0039) (Nomaru Par.0047 discloses: “In performing laser processing by applying the laser beam LB to the wafer 10” and this is also shown in Nomaru Figs.7A-7B).
Regarding claim 16, Nomaru discloses the method set forth in claim 13, and also disclose further comprising:
pausing said exposing (it is noted that exposing is exposing the package to a scanned pulsed laser beam, as required by the independent claim 13 of the Instant Application) to allow liquid (liquid W, Nomaru Figs.7A-7B) to flow into a region (“predetermined division line”, Nomaru Pars.0045, 0055 & Fig.7A) of the package (wafer 10, Nomaru Figs.7A-7B) after the region (“predetermined division line”, Nomaru Pars.0045, 0055 & Fig.7A) has been ablated by the pulsed laser beam (pulsed laser beam LB generated by the laser oscillator 82, Nomaru Figs.1 & 5, Par.0039) (Nomaru Par.0047 discloses: “In performing laser processing by applying the laser beam LB to the wafer 10” and this is also shown in Nomaru Figs.7A-7B) and resuming said exposing after the liquid (liquid W, Nomaru Figs.7A-7B) has filled said region (“predetermined division line”, Nomaru Pars.0045, 0055 & Fig.7A) (Nomaru Par.0055 discloses: “After the ablation described above is carried out for the predetermined division line, the holding table 34 on the holding base 31 is moved in the Y-axis direction, or the direction indicated by an arrow D in FIG. 1, by the holding table moving means 24, the X-axis direction moving mechanism 76 of the laser beam applying unit 6 is operated to position the condenser 86 at one end portion of an unprocessed division line adjacent to the just-processed division line, and the same laser processing as the above-mentioned ablation is conducted.”, Nomaru Par.0046 discloses: “After the focal point position of the laser beam LB to be applied from the condenser 86 is positioned on the wafer 10, the motor 54 is operated to rotate the roller 52 in a direction indicated by the arrow R1. As a result, a flow of the liquid W in a direction from the liquid supply nozzle 43 toward the liquid discharge nozzle 44 in the Y-axis direction, between the roller 52 and the front surface of the wafer 10, is accelerated, so that a faster flow is generated.”; therefore, when the predetermined division line is ablated, the predetermined division line is filled with the liquid W because the liquid W is flowed from left to right as shown in Figs.7A & 7B, then the laser is not operated until the laser beam is at one end portion of an unprocessed division line adjacent to the just-processed division line to process the unprocessed division line adjacent to the just-processed division line; therefore, Nomaru discloses pausing said exposing to allow liquid to flow into a region of the package after the region has been ablated by the pulsed laser beam and resuming said exposing after the liquid has filled said region)
Regarding claim 17, Nomaru discloses the method set forth in claim 13, and also disclose further comprising:
milling a first region (first region, Nomaru annotated Fig.7A below) completely through the package (wafer 10, Nomaru Fig.1) with said pulsed laser beam (pulsed laser beam LB generated by the laser oscillator 82, Nomaru Figs.1, 5, 7A & Par.0039) to allow liquid (liquid W, Nomaru Figs.7A-7B) to flow into said first region (first region, Nomaru annotated Fig.7A below) to liquid (liquid W, Nomaru Figs.7A-7B) from below the package (wafer 10, Nomaru Fig.1) (it is noted that Nomaru Par.0002 discloses: “A wafer having a plurality of devices such as integrated circuits (ICs) and large-scale integrations (LSIs) formed in a front surface of the wafer demarcated by division lines (streets) and is divided into individual device chips by a laser processing apparatus, and the divided device chips are used for electric equipment such as a mobile phone, a personal computer, and illumination equipment”; therefore, Nomaru discloses the milling the first region completely through the wafer 10 in order to divide the water 10 into individual chips; it is further noted that since the liquid W is flowed from left to right as shown in Nomaru Figs.7A-7B, thus, the liquid is flowed into the first region, and to below the wafer 10; see the 112b rejections of the limitation “allow liquid to flow into said first region to liquid from below the package” in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section above) and
milling a second region (second region, Nomaru annotated Fig.7A below) contiguous with said first region (first region, Nomaru annotated Fig.7A below) after said first region (first region, Nomaru annotated Fig.7A below) has filled with liquid (liquid W, Nomaru Figs.7A-7B) (since the liquid W is flowed from left to right as shown in Nomaru Figs.7A-7B, thus, the first region is filled with liquid W right after the cut is made; therefore, Nomaru discloses milling the second region contiguous with the first region after the first region has filled with liquid W).
PNG
media_image2.png
480
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Nomaru discloses the method set forth in claim 13, and also disclose:
recirculating liquid from said liquid bath (liquid chamber 41, Nomaru Fig.1) through a filter (filter 46, Nomaru Fig.1) to remove ablated material and bubbles created by said pulsed laser (laser beam applying unit 6 includes a laser oscillator 82, Nomaru Figs.1 & 5, Par.0039) ablating the package (wafer 10, Nomaru Fig.1) (Nomaru Par.0034 discloses: “Note that the liquid reserving tank 47 is connected directly to the filter 46, and also has a function of discharging air bubbles contained in the liquid W led to the filter 46.” and Nomaru Par.0054 discloses: “Since the debris released into the liquid W is trapped by the filter 46, the debris is prevented from being again circulated into the liquid chamber 41.”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 5, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadjikhani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0118695 A1) in view of Kirihara (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0330774 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hadjikhani discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each of repeated bursts is between 2 and 50 pulses long.
Kirihara teaches an apparatus (laser processing apparatus, Kirihara Figs.1-2A) for milling of a sample (wafer 10, Kirihara Fig.2A) comprising:
a pulsed laser (laser oscillator 44b, Kirihara Fig.2A) (Kirihara Par. teaches: “a pulsed laser beam outputted from the laser oscillator 44 b”) being energized in a series of bursts (Kirihara teaches the pulsed laser being energized in a series of bursts because Kirihara Par.0042 teaches: “the pulsed laser beam including the burst pulses is applied to the wafer”), each of said bursts being between 2 and 50 pulses in duration (Kirihara Par.0035 teaches: “Number of sub-pulses constituting burst pulse: 5”; therefore, Kirihara teaches each of said bursts being 5 pulses in duration, which is inside of the claimed range),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hadjikhani, by adding the teachings of each of said bursts being 5 pulses in duration, as taught by Kirihara, in order to enhance the process by increasing the material removal rate and improving the quality of the processed surface because grouping pulses into bursts increases the specific material removal rate compared to using single pulse of the same total energy.
Regarding claim 5, Hadjikhani discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said pulsed laser has a wavelength between 1050 nanometers (nm) and 350 nm.
Kirihara teaches an apparatus (laser processing apparatus, Kirihara Figs.1-2A) for milling of a sample (wafer 10, Kirihara Fig.2A) comprising:
wherein said pulsed laser has a wavelength between 1050 nanometers (nm) and 350 nm (Kirihara Par.0033 teaches: “Wavelength of pulsed laser beam: 1,030 nm”, therefore, Kirihara teaches the wavelength of 1030 nm, which is inside of the claimed range)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hadjikhani, by adding the teaching of a wavelength of 1030 nm, as taught by Kirihara, in order to achieve high precision and quality of the laser process because the wavelength of 1030 nm can achieve micron and sub-micron feature sizes, resulting in clean, burr-free edges that often require minimal to no post-processing. This ensures consistent quality and tight tolerances.
Regarding claim 20, Hadjikhani discloses an apparatus (laser apparatus 100, Hadjikhani Fig.3A) for milling a cross section in a semiconductor package (IC package 10, Hadjikhani Fig.3A) with a laser beam (laser beam L, Hadjikhani Fig.3A) (Hadjikhani Par.0018 discloses: “the laser cutt