DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment received 03/17/2026. The amendment has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The prior drawing objections are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
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 first and second cracks forming a (i.e. singular) crack having an offset portion within the substrate along the scribe street 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
The prior claim objection is withdrawn. Applicant is well within their rights to use confusing mis-matched ordinal terminology (remarks, p. 9), thereby making the claims unnecessarily difficult to understand in view of the specification and other claims. It is noted even Applicant continues to confuse the claimed features, noting the prior issues with claim 1 and the new issues introduced in claims 3, 4, and 9.
Applicant is advised that should claims 1, 8 (if claim 8 were to depend from claim 1), and 9 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 must end with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior §112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
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 3, 4, 9, and 10 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 3 recites “the first crack comprises an extension of a third crack extending from the second modified region, and the first crack is aligned with and follows the same direction as the third crack”. In view of amended claim 1, the first crack is 144, the second modified region is 138, the third crack must be 146, 144 is offset from 146, claim 3 now recites new matter. The only two cracks that are aligned are 142 and 144.
Claim 4 recites “the second modified region is closer to the second surface than to the first surface”. In view of amended claim 1, the second modified region is 138, there is no disclosure of 138 being closer to either surface, the only modified regions disclosed as being closer to the first or second surfaces are the first 136 and third 140 modified regions, claim 4 now recites new matter.
Claim 9 recites “the offset of the third modified region is offset relative to the scan direction in a direction opposite to a direction that the first modified region is offset”. In view of amended claim 1, the third modified region is 140, the first modified region 136 is offset from the second modified region 138 in the direction to the left in Fig. 1, the third modified region is also similarly offset to the left, claim 9 now recites new matter.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites “the method”, “the offset of the third modified region”, “the scan direction”, and “the first modified region”, all lacking antecedence. It is unclear how to interpret claim 8.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant deleted the claim number from which claim 8 is supposed to depend from, therefore dependent claim 8 no longer further limits a claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Since claim 8 appears to be a duplicate of claim 9, it is suggested Applicant cancel claim 8.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakamoto et al. (US 2011/0300691).
(Re Claim 1 Sakamoto teaches a method comprising (see Figs. 1-14 and supporting text): directing a first laser beam at a surface (12b) of a semiconductor substrate with an entry point along a scribe street thereof, wherein the first laser beam is focused inside the substrate to form a first modified region, which is offset from a second modified region in a direction orthogonal to a scan direction of the first laser beam, and a first crack extending between the second modified region and the first modified region along a direction orthogonal to the surface (see Fig. 12, laser L applied along scribe streets 5, also see Fig. 10, first modified region 7a(7) closest to device side 12a, second modified region is the next 7a(7) above the first modified region, a crack 17a extends between the first and second modified regions, the scan direction 5 is perpendicular to (directed into or out of) the page/figure, in an x- or y-direction if Fig. 12 is an x-z plane, the offset being in a z-direction, perpendicular to the x- or y-scanning direction, note directions in the x-z or y-z plane of the figure cross section are perpendicular to the scanning directions along the grid 5 shown in Fig. 10); and
directing a second laser beam at the surface focused to have a second focal point inside the substrate to form a third modified region, which is offset from the first and second modified regions in a direction orthogonal to the scan direction of the second laser beam, and a second crack extending from the second modified region to the surface in a direction that is orthogonal to a scan direction of the second laser beam, the first and second cracks forming a crack having an offset portion within the substrate along the scribe street (third modified region is one of the 7a(7) or 7b(7) above the first two modified regions, third crack begins as a 17a above and connected to second modified region second 7a(7) from bottom, and is offset in the vertical z-direction perpendicular to a direction 5, noting in Fig. 13, the crack is extended from the second modified region all the way to the surfaces and the crack also has a lateral offset portion at 18/19).
(Re Claim 2) wherein the surface is a first surface and the substrate is a semiconductor wafer having a second surface opposite from the first surface, the first and second cracks extending between the first and second surfaces of the substrate (see Figs. 12-13, the cracks extend between the first and second surfaces to singulate the wafer).
(Re Claim 5) wherein the substrate includes a plurality of semiconductor die having active circuitry at the second surface that are separated by respective scribe streets (¶¶75-85, Fig. 13, semiconductor dies 25, 12a is the active device side).
(Re Claim 6) further comprising: positioning the second surface of the substrate on a tape material; and separating the plurality of semiconductor die (Fig. 13, tape 23, ¶¶84-85).
(Re Claim 11) Sakamoto teaches a method comprising (see Figs. 1-14 and supporting text): directing a first laser beam at a surface of a semiconductor substrate with an entry point along a scribe street thereof, wherein the first laser beam is focused inside the substrate to form a first modified region and an embedded first crack extending from the first modified region along a direction orthogonal to the surface and having a length that is less than a thickness of the substrate (see Fig. 12, laser L applied along scribe streets 5, first modified region 7a(7) closest to device side 12a and corresponding crack 17a); directing a second laser beam at the surface focused to have a second focal point inside the substrate to form a second modified region, which is offset from the first modified region in a direction orthogonal to a scan direction of the second laser beam, and a second crack extending the first crack toward the surface (modified region above the first modified region, offset in vertical z-direction is perpendicular to a scan direction along 5 which is into or out of plane of page/figure in x-y-directions, second crack 17a above first crack); and directing a third laser beam at the surface focused to have a third focal point inside the substrate to form a third modified region, which is offset from the first and second modified regions, and a third crack and offset from the first crack in a direction that is orthogonal to a scan direction of the third laser beam (third modified region upper 7b(7) and third crack upper 17b offset in vertical z-direction that is perpendicular to an x-y scan direction along grid 5 in Fig. 10).
(Re Claim 12) wherein: the surface is a first surface (12b) of the substrate, and the first crack extends from the first modified region to a second surface (12a) of the substrate opposite the first surface, and the second crack is an extension of the first crack, and the first and third cracks form part of a crack having an offset portion within the substrate between the first and second surfaces of the substrate (see Fig. 13, cracks are all extended and connected together, offset crack in middle at 18/19).
(Re Claim 13) wherein: the first modified region is closer to the second surface than to the first surface, the third modified region is closer to the first surface than to the second surface, and the second modified region resides between the first and third modified regions (Fig. 12).
(Re Claim 14) wherein the substrate includes a plurality of semiconductor die having active circuitry at the second surface that are separated by respective scribe streets (active devices at surface 12a, scribe streets at 5).
(Re Claim 15) further comprising: positioning the second surface of the substrate on a tape material; and separating the plurality of semiconductor die during a separating process (Figs. 12-13, second surface 12a, tape 23 is expanded, dies 25, ¶¶84-85).
Claims 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. (US 2017/0271547).
(Re Claim 11) Tsai teaches a method comprising (see Figs. 1-2B and supporting text): directing a first laser beam at a surface of a semiconductor substrate with an entry point along a scribe street thereof, wherein the first laser beam is focused inside the substrate to form a first modified region and an embedded first crack extending from the first modified region along a direction orthogonal to the surface and having a length that is less than a thickness of the substrate; directing a second laser beam at the surface focused to have a second focal point inside the substrate to form a second modified region, which is offset from the first modified region in a direction orthogonal to a scan direction of the second laser beam, and a second crack extending the first crack toward the surface; and directing a third laser beam at the surface focused to have a third focal point inside the substrate to form a third modified region, which is offset from the first and second modified regions, and a third crack and offset from the first crack in a direction that is orthogonal to a scan direction of the third laser beam (see Figs. 2A-2B, a laser is used to make first-third modified regions, e.g. 324, 323, 322, respectively, in the semiconductor substrate ¶26, these are offset from one another in a vertical z—direction that is perpendicular to the x-y scan directions of the laser, cracks 331 extending along the z-direction are formed to connect the modified regions and extend to the upper and lower surfaces of the substrate, also refer to Fig. 1F: cracks 231).
(Re Claim 17) wherein the third modified region (322) is offset from the first modified region (324) in a direction (z-direction) that is different from a direction that the second modified region is offset from the first modified region (x-direction).
(Re Claim 18) wherein: a center of the second modified region (323) is offset from a center of the first modified region by a distance that ranges from 1 µm to 5 µm (corresponding to H=4µm, ¶43), and a center of the third modified region is offset from a center of the first modified region by a distance that ranges from 3 µm to 6 µm (corresponding to 2V, V can be 1-30µm, this is met when V=2-3µm, ¶43).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As best understood, based on Applicant’s extensive use of bold, italic, and underline formatting throughout the remarks, it appears Applicant’s primary issue is with the cracks being offset in a direction perpendicular to a scan direction of the laser. In Sakamoto, the scan direction is along the dicing lines 5, in an x-y plane of the substrate (e.g. see Fig. 10), and the cracks and modified regions are offset in a vertical z-direction which is perpendicular to the scan direction(s) (see Fig. 12). Claim 11 does not yet require offsets in a lateral (left-right) direction as shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1, only a perpendicular direction which can be met by either the x or y direction in the cross-sections. If Applicant requires an offset in the lateral/left-right direction as shown in Fig. 1 of the instant application, Applicant should define the claimed offset directions more clearly. The Examiner reviewed the claims and prior art and Sakamoto clearly teaches the claim limitations as applied in the rejection above. Applicant similarly argues Tsai while copying portions of Tsai’s disclosure from embodiments not relied upon. Tsai is similarly applied, the scan direction is along the dicing lines in the x-y plane of the wafer and the cracks and modified regions are offset in a vertical z-direction. The claims do not require the offsets to be in the same lateral direction as shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1, nor does the offset need to be only or exclusively in a perpendicular direction, an offset may be in two directions and include both a z and an x or y component, one of the directions (e.g. z) being perpendicular as required. Further still, “along a direction” does not require parallel or perfect alignment with that direction. The claim language does not preclude this treatment. Nor does the claim language require cracks to be formed simultaneously or instantaneously along with the formation of the modified regions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK T. K. PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 pm (CST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/ERIK T. K. PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights