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 .
Response to Arguments
With regards to the applicants arguments filed on 04/16/2026 on pages 7 and 8 the applicant argues that Lizuka et al radiates a laser to an internal layer of the substrate and not a surface layer of the substrate. The argument is not found persuasive, as there is not clear definition of a depth of the wafer such that it is a surface layer verses an internal layer. So long as there is a section on a top portion of the substrate where the laser radiates, it can be considered a “first main surface.” If the applicant wishes to disclose a top layer of a specific depth, or limited not beyond a certain depth, it is recommended that the applicant claim such depth. Also, applicant argues the language “configured to hold a wafer substrate after slicing a single crystal ingot’ – but a structure that is able to hold a wafer would be ‘configured to’ hold a wafer both before and after a process is applied to it, the question would be – what is the structural difference of the present holder as compared to the prior art? With regards to the arguments on pages 8 and 9, Lizuka et al is now not used to read onto such claim language about removing a surface layer of the wafer substrate (Donofrio et al - US 10562130 is used to teach these amended limitations as seen in the new rejection below). Per applicants arguments on pages 10-11 regarding Donofrio et al, regarding the language of radiating a laser beam onto a first main surface, similar to the arguments about Lizuka et al if the applicant wishes to disclose a specific depth that describes “first main surface” applicant is encouraged to do so, but as it stands when a laser radiates “on a first main surface” the specific depth of the “main surface” under the broadest reasonable interpretation can have a depth to it. Additionally, a laser when it radiates to an “internal surface” must still radiate through a top surface, and thus is till radiating onto said surface. It is recommended that the language regarding the specific point of “cutting” or “removing” of the laser on the wafer substrate be more precise. Language such as “on” is broad in nature and must be read under its “broadest reasonable interpretation” which in the present case is very broad in nature.
Additionally, the applicant argues on pages 9 and 10 of the office action that Donofrio fails to teach or suggest “placing a wafer substrate obtained after slicing a single crystal ingot” but the office action never asserted that Donofrio et al taught such limitations but rather Lizuka et al teaches the limitations of the wafer substrate obtains after slicing a single crystal ingot. Donofrio et al is read in light of Lizuka et al, thus the wafer substrate of Donofrio et al is the wafer substrate of Lizuka et al after the slicing from the single crystal ingot.
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) 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, and 30 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
[claim 17] A laser processing apparatus, comprising: a holder configured to hold a substrate obtained after slicing a single crystal ingot, the wafer substrate comprising a first main surface and a second main surface (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, where the first main surface is the top surface and the second main surface is the bottom surface),
a light source configured to oscillate a laser beam to be radiated to the first main surface of the wafer substrate, such that a radiation point of the laser beam is located on the first main surface (figures 1 and 4, paragraphs 0017 and 0034, 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], radiating a first main surface of the wafer substrate),
[claim 23] A laser processing method, comprising: placing a wafer substrate obtained after slicing a single crystal ingot, the wafer substrate comprising a first main surface and a second main surface (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, where the first main surface is the top surface and the second main surface is the bottom surface);
and radiating a laser beam to a first main surface of the wafer substrate (figures 1 and 4, paragraphs 0017 and 0034, 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], radiating a first main surface of the wafer substrate),
However, Lizuka et al does not specifically disclose
[claim 17] a moving unit configured to move a position of a radiation point of the laser beam on the first main surface of the wafer substrate in a state that the wafer substrate is held by the holder, 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 wafer substrate after the slicing, thereby removing a surface layer of the first main surface of the wafer substrate, and wherein the laser beam is radiated under conditions such that the surface layer is scattered and removed, thereby removing a fragment adhering to the first main surface during the slicing of the single crystal ingot.
[claim 23] such that a radiation point of the laser beam is located on the first main surface, after the slicing, thereby removing a surface layer of the first main surface of the wafer substrate, wherein the laser beam is radiated under conditions such that the surface layer is scattered and removed, thereby removing a fragment adhering to the first main surface during the slicing of the single crystal ingot.
However, Donofrio et al does teach
[claim 17] a moving unit configured to move a position of a radiation point of the laser beam on the first main surface of the wafer substrate in a state that the wafer substrate is held by the holder (figures 34A-C, col 39 line 55 – col 40 line 7, where element 192 is the moving unit configured to move a position of the radiation point of the laer beam [as shown in figure 49A] on the first main surface [top surface] of the wafer substrate [crystalline material] in a state where the wafer substrate is held by the holder [rigid carrier – different than the chuck]),
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 wafer substrate after the slicing (figures 49A and 51, col 60 lines 51-62, where the controller of figure 51 controls both the light source and the moving unit where the controller controls the movement of the light source where the laser radiates a beam onto the first main surface [top surface] of the wafer substrate [as seen in figure 49A] after slicing the ingot [as read into the art by Lizuka where the cutting is done after slicing the ingot]),
thereby removing a surface layer of the first main surface of the wafer substrate (figure 49A, col 52 lines 28-64, where element 433 is the first main surface that is removed by a laser),
and wherein the laser beam is radiated under conditions such that the surface layer is scattered and removed, thereby removing a fragment adhering to the first main surface during the slicing of the single crystal ingot (figure 49A, col 52 lines 28-64, where element 433 is the first main surface that is scattered and removed from the first main surface by the laser beam being radiated on the surface layer).
[claim 23] such that a radiation point of the laser beam is located on the first main surface, after the slicing, thereby removing a surface layer of the first main surface of the wafer substrate (figure 49A, col 52 lines 28-64, where element 433 is the first main surface that is removed by a laser [element 440]),
wherein the laser beam is radiated under conditions such that the surface layer is scattered and removed, thereby removing a fragment adhering to the first main surface during the slicing of the single crystal ingot (figure 49A, col 52 lines 28-64, where element 433 is the first main surface that is removed by a laser [element 440] where the laser is radiated onto the first main surface and then the first main surface is scattered and removed off the wafer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Lizuka et al to incorporate the teaches of Donofrio et al to remove the first main surface of the wafer substrate with a controller and laser to maximize efficiency by using a precise manner (laser) to remove the top surface so as to minimize cracking and breaking of the wafer but process the wafer adequately.
Lizuka et al as modified does not specifically disclose
[claim 19] The laser processing apparatus 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.
[claim 21], wherein the holder holds the substrate without deforming the substrate.
[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.
[claim 27] The laser processing method, wherein the placing of the wafer substrate obtained by slicing the single crystal ingot includes holding the wafer substrate without deforming the substrate.
[claim 29] The laser processing apparatus of claim 17, The laser processing apparatus of wherein the laser beam is a pulse laser, and a radiation time per pulse is 30 nsec or less.
[claim 30] The laser processing method of claim 23 The laser processing method of wherein the laser beam is a pulse laser, and a radiation time per pulse is 30 nsec or less.
However, Donofrio et al further discloses
[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]).
[claim 21], wherein the holder holds the wafer substrate without deforming the wafer substrate (abstract, claim 1, where the holder does not deform the substrate but merely holds the substrate to be processed).
[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 29] The laser processing apparatus of claim 17, The laser processing apparatus of wherein the laser beam is a pulse laser, and a radiation time per pulse is 30 nsec or less (col 22 lines 14-40, where the pulsed laser radiates the wafer substrate in nanosecond or picosecond range, which is substantially lower than 30 nanoseconds).
[claim 30] The laser processing method of claim 23 The laser processing method of wherein the laser beam is a pulse laser, and a radiation time per pulse is 30 nsec or less (col 22 lines 14-40, where the pulsed laser radiates the wafer substrate in nanosecond or picosecond range, which is substantially lower than 30 nanoseconds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Lizuka et al as modified to incorporate the teaches of Donofrio et al to remove the first main surface of the wafer substrate with a controller and laser to maximize efficiency by using a precise manner (laser) to remove the top surface so as to minimize cracking and breaking of the wafer but process the wafer adequately.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizuka et al (US 20180214976) and Donofrio et al (US 10562130) and in further view of Lee et al (KR 20190040828).
Lizuka et al as modified 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 wafer 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 wafer 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 as modified 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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizuka et al (US 20180214976) and Donofrio et al (US 10562130) and in view of Huang et al (US 20150122786).
Lizuka et al as modified 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 as modified 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) and Donofrio et al (US 10562130) and in view of Ota (JP 2013247266).
Lizuka et al as modified 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 as modified 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 Lizuka et al (US 20180214976) and Donofrio et al (US 10562130) in view of Lee et al (KR 20190040828).
Lizuka et al as modified 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 Lizuka et al as modified 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 Lizuka et al (US 20180214976) and Donofrio et al (US 10562130) and in view of Huang et al (US 20150122786).
Lizuka et al as modified 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 Lizuka et al as modified 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 Lizuka et al (US 20180214976) and Donofrio et al (US 10562130) and in view of Ota (JP 2013247266).
Lizuka et al as modified 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 Lizuka et al as modified 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 JOHN ZABEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights