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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lizuka et al (US 20180214976).
Lizuka et al teaches
[claim 17] A laser processing apparatus, comprising: a holder configured to hold a substrate obtained by slicing a single crystal ingot (figure 1, paragraph 0017, where element 2 is the laser apparatus, it includes a holding means [element 6] for holding and processing a crystal ingot),
a light source configured to oscillate a laser beam to be radiated to a first main surface of the substrate (figure 1, paragraph 0017, a light source [element 10] made of a laser [which inherent to its nature is oscillating light, since a LASER requires oscillated light to produce a laser]),
a moving unit configured to move a position of a radiation point of the laser beam on the first main surface of the substrate in a state that the substrate is held by the holder (figure 1, paragraph 0017, element 8 is the moving unit to move a position of the radiated point from the laser on the substrate),
and a controller configured to control the light source and the moving unit, wherein the controller controls the light source and the moving unit to radiate the laser beam to the first main surface of the substrate to remove a surface layer of the first main surface of the substrate, so that fragment adhering to the first main surface during the slicing of the single crystal ingot is removed (figure 1, paragraph 0017, claim 1, where the controller unit [not displayed but mentioned in paragraph 0017] which controls all of the portions of the apparatus, it controls the light source [element 10], the moving unit [element 8] and it can move/rotate the substrate such that the first main surface has the ingot removed by the laser).
[claim 21], wherein the holder holds the substrate without deforming the substrate (abstract, claim 1, where the holder does not deform the substrate but merely holds the substrate to be processed).
Claim(s) 23, 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Donofrio et al (US 10562130).
[claim 23] A laser processing method, comprising: placing a substrate obtained by slicing a single crystal ingot (col 1 lines 27-43, where the apparatus can be used for a method which places a substrate to be processed obtained from slicing a crystal ingot with a laser),
and removing, by radiating a laser beam to a first main surface of the substrate to remove a surface layer of the first main surface, fragment adhering to the first main surface during the slicing of the single crystal ingot (figure 38, col 44 line 54 – col 45 line 25, describes the process of using a laser to remove the first surface of a substrate called a subsurface layer, which is removed and attached a first surface of the original crystal ingot, which is designated as the fragment of the crystal ingot, thus the first main surface radiated by the laser on the substrate is removed and adheres to the single crystal ingot).
[claim 25] The laser processing method, further comprising: grinding the first main surface after the removing of the fragment adhering to the first main surface (col 45 line 46 – col 46 line 8, where grinding is performed after removal of the fragment adhering to the first main surface with the laser processing).
[claim 27] The laser processing method, wherein the placing of the substrate obtained by slicing the single crystal ingot includes holding the substrate without deforming the substrate ((figure 38, col 44 line 54 – col 45 line 25, describes the process of using a laser to slice the crystal ingot and no deforming of the substrate is performed).
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizuka et al (US 20180214976) in view of Lee et al (KR 20190040828).
Lizuka et al teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 17, however it does not specifically disclose
[claim 18] The laser processing apparatus of Claim 17, further comprising: an inverting unit configured to invert the substrate, wherein the controller controls the light source, the moving unit and the inverting unit to radiate the laser beam to a second main surface of the substrate inverted by the inverting unit to remove a surface layer of the second main surface, so that fragment adhering to the second main surface during the slicing of the single crystal ingot is removed.
However, Lee et al does teach
[claim 18] further comprising: an inverting unit configured to invert the substrate (figure 3, paragraph 0008, where the laser apparatus contains an inverting device [element 300] to invert the substrate),
wherein the controller controls the light source, the moving unit and the inverting unit to radiate the laser beam to a second main surface of the substrate inverted by the inverting unit to remove a surface layer of the second main surface, so that fragment adhering to the second main surface during the slicing of the single crystal ingot is removed (figure 3, paragraphs 0060 and 0074, where the controller controls the entire device [when read in light of Lizuka et al, the controller controls the light source the mover and the inverter when adding the inverter to the already established device], and inverts the substrate such that the light irradiates the other [second] surface of the substrate to remove a surface of the other [second] side of the substrate [which is a crystal ingot as disclosed in Lizuka et al and established in the base claim]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lizuka et al to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al in order to install an inverter to be able to process the other side of the substrate instead of just one side, thus making the entire machine more efficient by not having to remove the substrate, flip, then place back on, but allowing an inverter to do the movement for the operator.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizuka et al (US 20180214976) in view of Donofrio et al (US 10562130).
Lizuka et al teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 17, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 19] The laser processing apparatus of Claim 17, further comprising: a grinding module configured to grind the first main surface, wherein the controller performs a control of grinding the first main surface by the grinding module after the fragment adhering to the first main surface is removed.
However, Donofrio et al does teach
[claim 19] The laser processing apparatus further comprising: a grinding module configured to grind the first main surface (figures 39 and 40, col 46 lines 39-63, where the configuration has a robotic grinding station, inherently needing to be controlled by a controller as when imposed onto Lizuka et al is read into with the controller of the mover and light source, where the grinding takes place after radiation of the substrate from the laser),
wherein the controller performs a control of grinding the first main surface by the grinding module after the fragment adhering to the first main surface is removed (figures 39 and 40, col 46 lines 39-63, where the grinding takes place after radiation of the substrate from the laser, thus after the fragment adhering to the first main surface, where the grinding takes place on the first main surface that is first irradiated by the light source [laser]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Lizuka et al to incorporate the teachings of Donofrio et al in order to smooth out the substrate to make less deformities and thus creating a more efficient device in the long term.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizuka et al (US 20180214976) in view of Huang et al (US 20150122786).
Lizuka et al teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 17, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 20] The laser processing apparatus, further comprising: an etching module configured to etch the first main surface, wherein the controller performs a control of etching the first main surface by the etching module after the fragment adhering to the first main surface is removed.
However, Huang et al does teach
[claim 20] The laser processing apparatus, further comprising: an etching module configured to etch the first main surface (paragraph 0035, where the apparatus has an etching module configured to etch the surface, in order to control the etching velocity of the ablation process).
wherein the controller performs a control of etching the first main surface by the etching module after the fragment adhering to the first main surface is removed (paragraph 0035, where the apparatus has an etching module configured to etch the surface, in order to control the etching velocity of the ablation process. Note, according to MPEP 2113 a product-by-process claim is only examined upon the final product. The language of “etching after the fragment” institutes a process of the crystal ingot being processed and thus only the final product is examined, in the present case it is simple a wafer of which the prior art discloses that etching is done on a substrate and thus reads onto the current claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Lizuka et al with the teachings of Huang et al in order to incorporate an etching step into the wafer processing apparatus which is essential to create specific layers and IC’s according to predetermined patterns to create circuitry or other mechanisms such that a functioning device is created.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizuka et al (US 20180214976) in view of Ota (JP 2013247266).
Lizuka et al teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 17, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 22] The laser processing apparatus further comprising: a waveform measuring unit configured to measure a waveform of the first main surface in a state that a surface stress of the substrate is substantially zero, wherein the controller performs a control of reducing the waveform of the first main surface by controlling, while referring to measurement data of the waveform of the first main surface, a total radiation amount of the laser beam per unit area of the first main surface.
However, Ota does teach
[claim 22] The laser processing apparatus further comprising: a waveform measuring unit configured to measure a waveform of the first main surface in a state that a surface stress of the substrate is substantially zero (paragraph 0005, figure 1, where the waveform measuring unit is part of the laser apparatus [element 100] and irradiates a first main surface of a substrate where no prior process is done to the substrate before measuring a waveform, thus having no known surface stress),
wherein the controller performs a control of reducing the waveform of the first main surface by controlling, while referring to measurement data of the waveform of the first main surface, a total radiation amount of the laser beam per unit area of the first main surface (figures 1 and 2, paragraph 0005, where the waveform measuring unit takes multiple measurements, thus the first measurement is taken of the first main surface of the substrate, a feedback loop is given for the apparatus, and another waveform is sent to measure the substrate again thus referring to the first measured waveform data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Lizuka et al to incorporate the teachings of Ota in order to measure the surface stresses and deformities of the substrate to improve substrate efficiency by getting rid of the deformities through laser annulment.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donofrio et al (US 10562130) in view of Lee et al (KR 20190040828).
Donofrio et al teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 23, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 24] The laser processing method, further comprising: inverting the substrate; and removing, by radiating the laser beam to a second main surface of the substrate opposite to the first main surface to remove a surface layer of the second main surface, fragment adhering to the second main surface during the slicing of the single crystal ingot.
However, Lee et al does teach
[claim 24] The laser processing method, further comprising: inverting the substrate; and removing, by radiating the laser beam to a second main surface of the substrate opposite to the first main surface to remove a surface layer of the second main surface, fragment adhering to the second main surface during the slicing of the single crystal ingot (claim 14, where the chunk material is askin the crystal ingot read from Donofrio et al as the primary reference, where the inverter inverts the substrate and removes a second main surface of the substrate opposite of the first main surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Donofrio et al to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al in order to be able to laser process the opposite side of the first side by including an inverter and inverting the substrate such as no other mechanical process of removing the substrate, flipping and placing it again in a holder is done by a human, increasing efficiency of laser processing of the substrate.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donofrio et al (US 10562130) in view of Huang et al (US 20150122786).
Donofrio et al teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 23, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 26] The laser processing method, further comprising: etching the first main surface after the removing of the fragment adhering to the first main surface.
However, Huang et al does teach
[claim 26] The laser processing method, further comprising: etching the first main surface after the removing of the fragment adhering to the first main surface (paragraph 0035 where the etching of the substrate is completed after first removing the fragment of the crystal ingot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Donofrio et al to incorporate the teachings of Huang et al in order to etch the substrate after removing the crystal ingot layer to create an IC, or some other functional device by etching, such that the substrate is able to create a workable electronic device.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donofrio et al (US 10562130) in view of Ota (JP 2013247266).
Donofrio et al teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 23, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 28] The laser processing method, further comprising: measuring a waveform of the first main surface in a state that a surface stress of the substrate is substantially zero;
and performing a control of reducing the waveform of the first main surface by controlling, while referring to measurement data of the waveform of the first main surface, a total radiation amount of the laser beam per unit area of the first main surface.
However, Ota does teach
[claim 28] The laser processing method, further comprising: measuring a waveform of the first main surface in a state that a surface stress of the substrate is substantially zero (paragraph 0005, figure 1, where the waveform measuring unit is part of the laser apparatus [element 100] and irradiates a first main surface of a substrate where no prior process is done to the substrate before measuring a waveform, thus having no known surface stress);
and performing a control of reducing the waveform of the first main surface by controlling, while referring to measurement data of the waveform of the first main surface, a total radiation amount of the laser beam per unit area of the first main surface (figures 1 and 2, paragraph 0005, where the waveform measuring unit takes multiple measurements, thus the first measurement is taken of the first main surface of the substrate, a feedback loop is given for the apparatus, and another waveform is sent to measure the substrate again thus referring to the first measured waveform data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Donofrio et al to incorporate the teachings of Ota in order to measure the surface stresses and deformities of the substrate to improve substrate efficiency by getting rid of the deformities through laser annulment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Igasaki et al (US 20190126393 A1) and Wakabayashi et al (US 20180128686 A1) as comparable disclosures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ZABEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5PM ET.
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, Jeff W Natalini can be reached at 572-272-2266. 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.
/ANDREW ZABEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818