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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments on 6/18/2026 have been reviewed and entered. Claims 1, 9, and 12-13 have been amended by the Applicant. Claims 15-20 were previously withdrawn due to a requirement of restriction. Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-14 remain for examination.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims 12-13 have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed on 4/21/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 9,349,648 B2 (will be referred as Lei-648) in views of Dunne (US 2010/0099239 A1) and Moslehi (US 2017/0005206 A1).
Instant Application- 18/141,177
US Pat. No. US 9,349,648 B2 (Lei-648)
Claim 1:
A method of dicing a semiconductor wafer comprising a plurality of integrated circuits, the method comprising:
forming a mask above the semiconductor wafer, the mask comprising a layer covering and protecting the plurality of integrated circuits;
patterning the mask with a rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process to provide a patterned mask with gaps, exposing regions of the semiconductor wafer between the plurality of integrated circuits, wherein the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process comprises using laser spots that are square in plan view and having a top-hat profile in cross-sectional view,
and wherein the laser spots are edge-aligned such that there is no spacing between adjacent laser spots and the adjacent laser spots do not overlap with one another; and
plasma etching the semiconductor wafer through the gaps in the patterned mask to singulate the plurality of integrated circuits.
Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process comprises using a Gaussian source laser beam.
Claim 1:
A method of dicing a semiconductor wafer comprising a plurality of integrated circuits, the method comprising:
forming a mask above the semiconductor wafer, the mask comprising a layer covering and protecting the integrated circuits;
patterning the mask with a top hat laser beam profile laser scribing process to provide a patterned mask with gaps, exposing regions of the semiconductor wafer between the integrated circuits, wherein the top hat laser beam profile laser scribing process comprises scribing with a laser beam having a rectangular shaped two-dimensional top hat beam,
wherein scribing with the laser beam having the rectangular shaped two-dimensional top hat beam comprises shaping a Gaussian-shaped beam into the rectangular shaped two-dimensional top hat beam;
subsequent to patterning the mask with the top hat laser beam profile laser scribing process, cleaning the exposed regions of the semiconductor wafer with a plasma process; and
subsequent to cleaning the exposed regions of the semiconductor wafer with the plasma process, plasma etching the semiconductor wafer through the gaps in the patterned mask to singulate the integrated circuits.
Regarding claim 1, Lei-648 claim 1 recites the limitations of claim 1 which are shown in bold in the table above.
Lei-648, however, does not teach that the laser spots are edge-aligned such that there is no spacing between adjacent laser spots and the adjacent laser spots do not overlap with one another.
Dunne, on the other hand, teaches a method for laser scribing semiconductor substrates (Fig. 8, [0036]), wherein the laser spots (pulses 81, Fig. 8, [0035]) are edge-aligned (claim 1: “successive pulses at the substrate do not overlap but are …r contiguous …”) such that there is no spacing (see Fig. 8) between adjacent laser spots (pulses 81, Fig. 8) and the adjacent laser spots (pulses 81, Fig. 8) do not overlap with one another (claim 1).
Dunne further discloses that “a laser pulse 61 ablates material 62 a plume of debris 63 is created. If the subsequent pulse 64 interacts with the debris plume 63, the succeeding laser pulse 64 is partially attenuated because the debris plume partially absorbs the energy of the succeeding laser pulse” (see Fig. 6 and [0005]), “… laser machining with zero overlap substantially prevents pulse-plume interaction, and hence substantially eliminates any loss of energy of a succeeding pulse to a plume produced by a previous pulse” ([0036]), and “it has therefore been demonstrated that dicing with zero overlap according to the invention results in more efficient material removal from the wafer.” ([0045]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would already know from the teachings of Moslehi that “the square or rectangular flat top beam have flat edges, thus creating a flat outline, the overlap can be significantly reduced” (Fig. 28B, [0112]) and maximum scan speed is achieved with zero overlap (Fig. 28C, [0112]). Considering that Moslehi further discloses that “overlapping is minimized or may be completely reduced using a flat top beam“ ([0119]), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to modify the method of Lei-648 to use laser spots that are edge-aligned such that there is no spacing between adjacent laser spots and the adjacent laser spots do not overlap with one another, as taught by Dunne, for efficient material removal during lase scribing process and for fast scanning speed.
Regarding claim 4, Lei-648 claim 1 teaches the method of claim 1, and further recites all the limitations of claim 4 as shown in the table above.
Claims 6-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2-3 of U.S. Patent No. US 9,349,648 B2 (will be referred as Lei-648) in views of Dunne (US 2010/0099239 A1) and Moslehi (US 2017/0005206 A1).
Instant Application- 18/141,177
US Pat. No. US 9,349,648 B2 (Lei-648)
Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein scribing with the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process comprises scribing with a femto-second rectangular laser spot-based laser beam.
Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, wherein patterning the mask with the laser scribing process comprises forming trenches in the regions of the semiconductor wafer between the plurality of integrated circuits, and wherein plasma etching the semiconductor wafer comprises extending the trenches to form corresponding trench extensions.
Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein scribing with the laser beam having the rectangular shaped two-dimensional top hat beam comprises using a femto-second based rectangular shaped two-dimensional top hat beam.
Claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein patterning the mask with the laser scribing process comprises forming trenches in the regions of the semiconductor wafer between the integrated circuits, and wherein plasma etching the semiconductor wafer comprises extending the trenches to form corresponding trench extensions.
Regarding claim 6, Lei-648 claim 1 in views of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the method of claim 1, and Lei-648 claim 2 teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as shown in the table above.
Regarding claim 7, Lei-648 claim 1 in views of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the method of claim 1, and Lei-648 claim 2 teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as shown in the table above.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Lei-648 (US 9,349,648 B2) in views Dunne (US 2010/0099239 A1) and Moslehi (US 2017/0005206 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in views of Kumar (US 2015/0162243 A1) and Gu (US 2008/0067155 A1).
Lei-648 claim 1 in views of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the limitations of claims 1 (see claim1 rejection above).
Lei-648, Dunne, and Moslehi do not explicitly disclose that the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process comprises scribing with a laser beam having a wavelength in a range of 510-530 nanometers, an input beam diameter in a range of 8-10 millimeters, a working distance in a range of 40-55 millimeters, and an output square spot width in a range of 6-8 microns.
Kumar, on the other hand, teaches a method of dicing a semiconductor wafer (Fig. 9A-D, Abstract) comprising a plurality of integrated circuits ([0070]) with a laser spot-based laser scribing process (Abstract)), wherein the laser spot-based laser scribing process comprises scribing with a laser beam having a wavelength in a range of 510-530 nanometers ([0063]: 250nm to 540 nm), and an output square spot width in a range of 6-8 microns ([0063]: 5-10 microns).
Therefore, the range of wavelengths and the range of the output laser spot sizes provided by Kumar overlap with the ranges disclosed in the current application, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), as the range of wavelengths and range of spot sizes can be optimized by routine experimentation to achieve a desired scribing smoothness and minimize the damage caused by scribing (see MPEP 2144.05(II)), as also disclosed by Kumar (see the detailed description in paragraph [0066]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to use a laser beam having a wavelength in a range of 510-530 nanometers, and an output square spot width in a range of 6-8 microns in the method of Lei-648 in views of Dunne and Moslehi, as disclosed by Kumar to achieve a desired scribing smoothness and minimize the damage caused by scribing.
Lei-648, Dunne, Moslehi and Kumar, however, do not teach an input beam diameter in a range of 8-10 millimeters, and a working distance in a range of 40-55 millimeters.
Gu, on the other hand, teaches a method of laser processing semiconductor substrates (Fig. 2, [0005]-[0006]: including cutting and trimming), wherein the working distance is at least in a range of 40-55 millimeters ([0099]: at least 40 millimeters).
The range of working distances provided by Gu overlaps with the range disclosed the current application, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), as the range of working distances can be optimized by routine experimentation to achieve desired operating conditions for the method (see MPEP 2144.05(II)), as also disclosed by Gu, that having the working distance to be at least 40 millimeters allows access to the devices on the surface of the wafer if required (claim 50: such as contact probes). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be also motivated to adjust the working distance according to the heights of the integrated circuits on the semiconductor wafer. Therefore, the combination of Lei-648, Dunne, Moslehi, Kumar, and Gu meets the limitation that the working distance is at least in a range of 40-55 millimeters.
Lei-648, Dunne, Moslehi, Kumar, and Gu do not explicitly disclose that an input beam diameter is in a range of 8-10 millimeters.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be familiar with that the diameter of the femto-second Gaussian input beam would be set to achieve a stable beam-shaping profile for a given working distance, output beam spot size, and laser wavelength, as evidenced by Schlutow (page 2, section 2.1; Schlutow et al., Applications in Laser Material Processing. Materials 2021, 14, 4981, doi.org/10.3390/ma14174981). For example, for typical beam sizes of femtosecond lasers (~5 mm) and a beta factor of 10, the input beam diameter would be at least 6.9 millimeters (see equation 2 of Schlutow) for the ranges provided for the working distance, output spot size and laser wavelength. Thus, the range provided by combination of Lei-648, Kumar, and Gu covers the range provided by the current application, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), as the range of input beam diameter can be optimized by routine experimentation to achieve desired quality for the rectangular laser spot (see MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Therefore, the combination of Lei-648, Dunne, Moslehi, Kumar, and Gu meets all the limitations of claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Lei-648 (US 9,349,648 B2) in views Dunne (US 2010/0099239 A1) and Moslehi (US 2017/0005206 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Lei-648 claim 1 in view of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 4 (see rejections of claim 1 and 4 above).
Lei-648, Dunne, and Moslehi do not explicitly disclose that the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process comprises using a femto-second source laser beam.
However, it is well-known in the field of optics that a femto-second, square-shaped laser beam is generated most effectively by converting the Gaussian beam output of a femtosecond source laser to a square shape, as also evidenced by Long (Fig. 2, Long et al, Centimeter-scale low-damage micromachining on single-crystal 4H–SiC substrates using a femtosecond laser with square-shaped Flat-Top focus spots, Ceramics International, Volume 47, Issue 16, 2021, Pages 23134-23143, ISSN 0272-8842, doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.05.027). Applying a known technique to yield predictable results does not provide further inventive concept (see MPEP (I)(D)), and therefore, the combination of Lei-648, Dunne, and Moslehi meets the limitations of claim 5.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Lei-648 (US 9,349,648 B2) in views Dunne (US 2010/0099239 A1) and Moslehi (US 2017/0005206 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Balakrishnan (US 2021/0050262 A1).
Lei-648 claim 1 in views of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Lei-648, Dunne, and Moslehi, however, do not explicitly disclose that the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process is an actively-focused laser beam laser scribing process comprising pre-mapping a topography of the semiconductor wafer or a topography of a chuck for supporting the semiconductor wafer, or both.
Balakrishnan, on the other hand, teaches a method for dicing a semiconductor wafer by an actively-focused laser beam (Fig. 1, Abstract) including scribing the regions between the integrated circuits (integrated circuits 206, Fig. 2A-B, [0029]) on the semiconductor wafer (substrate 204, Figs. 2A-B, [0029]) with a laser beam (Figs. 2A-B, [0036]). Balakrishnan further teaches that the laser scribing process is an actively-focused laser beam laser scribing process ([0036]) comprising pre-mapping a topography of the semiconductor wafer or a topography of a chuck for supporting the semiconductor wafer, or both ([0044] and claim 12).
Balakrishnan discloses that an actively-focused laser beam laser scribing process including pre-mapping the topography of the semiconductor wafer or the topography of the chuck for supporting the semiconductor wafer, or both would provide the benefit of compensating for chuck or substrate thickness variations in a laser dicing process ([0023]) by actively adjusting the laser focus according to the topography ([0026]), and thereby increasing the uniformity of the scribe profile. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to incorporate an actively-focused laser beam laser scribing process comprising pre-mapping a topography of the semiconductor wafer or a topography of a chuck for supporting the semiconductor wafer, or both, as disclosed by Balakrishnan, into the method of Lei-648 in views of Dunne and Moslehi to increase the uniformity of the scribing process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei -697 (US 2016/0027697 A1) in views of Dunne (US 2010/0099239 A1) and Moslehi (US 2017/0005206 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lei-697 teaches a method of dicing (Figs. 1-2, [0012]) a semiconductor wafer (semiconductor wafer 204, Fig. 2A, [0038]) comprising a plurality of integrated circuits (integrated circuits 206, Fig. 2A, [0039]), the method (Figs. 2A-C) comprising:
forming a mask (mask 202, Fig. 2A, [0040]) above the semiconductor wafer (semiconductor wafer 204, Fig. 2A), the mask (mask 202, Fig. 2A) comprising a layer (see Fig. 2A) covering and protecting the plurality of integrated circuits ([0038]: “The mask 202 is composed of a layer covering and protecting integrated circuits 206 formed on the surface of semiconductor wafer 204”, Fig. 2A);
patterning the mask (mask 202, Fig. 2B, [0046]) with a rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process ([0047]: “a rectangular shaped two-dimensional top hat beam is used for the laser scribing process.”) to provide a patterned mask (patterned mask 208, Fig. 2B, [0046]) with gaps (gap 210, Fig. 2B, [0046]), exposing regions (regions at the bottom of the trenches 212, Fig. 2B, [0046]) of the semiconductor wafer (semiconductor wafer 204, Fig. 2B) between the plurality of integrated circuits (integrated circuits 206, Fig. 2B), wherein the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process (laser scribing process, Fig. 2B) comprises using laser spots (beam profile 304, Figs, 3A-B, [0032]) that are square in plan view ([0033]: “rectangular (square) two-dimensional top hat laser spot”, Figs. 3A-B) and having a top-hat profile in cross-sectional view ([0032]: “Beam profile 304 is a rectangular two dimensional top-hat beam profile.”, Figs. 3A-B),
plasma etching (plasma etching operation, Figs. 2B-C, [0065]) the semiconductor wafer (semiconductor wafer 204, Fig. 2C) through the gaps (gap 210, Figs. 2B-C) in the patterned mask (patterned mask 208, Fig. 2B) to singulate the plurality of integrated circuits (integrated circuits 206, Fig. 2C).
Lei-697, however, does not teach that
the laser spots are edge-aligned such that there is no spacing between
adjacent laser spots and the adjacent laser spots do not overlap with one another.
Dunne, on the other hand, teaches a method for laser scribing semiconductor substrates (Fig. 8, [0036]), wherein the laser spots (pulses 81, Fig. 8, [0035]) are edge-aligned (claim 1: “successive pulses at the substrate do not overlap but are …r contiguous …”) such that there is no spacing (see Fig. 8) between adjacent laser spots (pulses 81, Fig. 8) and the adjacent laser spots (pulses 81, Fig. 8) do not overlap with one another (claim 1).
Dunne further discloses that “a laser pulse 61 ablates material 62 a plume of debris 63 is created. If the subsequent pulse 64 interacts with the debris plume 63, the succeeding laser pulse 64 is partially attenuated because the debris plume partially absorbs the energy of the succeeding laser pulse” (see Fig. 6 and [0005]), “… laser machining with zero overlap substantially prevents pulse-plume interaction, and hence substantially eliminates any loss of energy of a succeeding pulse to a plume produced by a previous pulse” ([0036]), and “it has therefore been demonstrated that dicing with zero overlap according to the invention results in more efficient material removal from the wafer.” ([0045]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would already know from the teachings of Moslehi that “the square or rectangular flat top beam have flat edges, thus creating a flat outline, the overlap can be significantly reduced” (Fig. 28B, [0112]) and maximum scan speed is achieved with zero overlap (Fig. 28C, [0112]). Considering that Moslehi further discloses that “overlapping is minimized or may be completely reduced using a flat top beam“ ([0119]), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to modify the method of Lei-697 to use laser spots that are edge-aligned such that there is no spacing between adjacent laser spots and the adjacent laser spots do not overlap with one another, as taught by Dunne, for efficient material removal during lase scribing process and for fast scanning speed.
Regarding claim 4, Lei-697 in views of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
Lei-697 further teaches that the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process (([0047]: “a rectangular shaped two-dimensional top hat beam is used for the laser scribing process.”) comprises using a Gaussian source laser beam (Fig. 4A, [0035]: “The input collimated Gaussian beam 402 travels through a focusing lens 404, and then through a diffractive pattern 406. A top-hat spot 408 results which provides the top hat profile 410.”).
Regarding claim 5, Lei-697 in views of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the method of claim 4, wherein
Lei-697 further teaches that the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process comprises using a femto-second source laser beam ([0049]: “As described above, in an embodiment, a femtosecond-based laser is used as a source for a top hat profile laser beam laser scribing process.”).
Regarding claim 6, Lei-697 in views of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
Lei-697 further teaches that scribing with the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process comprises scribing with a femto-second rectangular laser spot-based laser beam ([0049]: “a femtosecond-based laser is used as a source for a top hat profile laser beam laser scribing process.”).
Regarding claim 7, Lei-697 in views of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
Lei-697 further teaches that patterning the mask (mask 202, Fig. 2B, [0046]) with the laser scribing process comprises forming trenches (trenches 212, Fig. 2B, [0046]) in the regions of the semiconductor wafer (semiconductor wafer 204, Fig. 2B) between the plurality of integrated circuits (integrated circuits 206, Fig. 2B), and wherein plasma etching (plasma etching operation, Figs. 2B-C, [0065]) the semiconductor wafer (semiconductor wafer 204, Fig. 2B) comprises extending the trenches ((trenches 212, Fig. 2B) to form corresponding trench extensions (claim 4: “plasma etching the semiconductor wafer comprises extending the trenches to form corresponding trench extensions.”).
Regarding claim 9, Lei-697 teaches a method of dicing (Figs. 1-2, [0012]) a semiconductor wafer (semiconductor wafer 204, Fig. 2A) comprising a plurality of integrated circuits (integrated circuits 206, Fig. 2A, [0039]), the method (Figs. 2A-C) comprising:
laser scribing ([0047]: “a rectangular shaped two-dimensional top hat beam is used for the laser scribing process.”) the semiconductor wafer (semiconductor wafer 204, Fig. 2B) with a rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process (laser scribing process, Fig. 2B, [0033]: “rectangular (square) two-dimensional top hat laser spot”, Figs. 3A-B) to singulate ([0059]: “It is to be appreciated that the dicing or singulation process could be stopped after the above described laser scribing in a case that the laser scribing is used to pattern the mask as well as to scribe fully through the wafer or substrate in order to singulate the dies.”) the plurality of integrated circuits (integrated circuits 206, Fig. 2B, [0046]), wherein the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process (laser scribing process, Fig. 2B) comprises using laser spots (beam profile 304, Figs, 3A-B, [0032]) that are square in plan view ([0033]: “rectangular (square) two-dimensional top hat laser spot”, Figs. 3A-B) and having a top-hat profile in cross-sectional view ([0032]: “Beam profile 304 is a rectangular two dimensional top-hat beam profile.”, Figs. 3A-B), Lei-697, however, does not teach that
the laser spots are edge-aligned such that there is no spacing between adjacent laser spots and the adjacent laser spots do not overlap with one another.
Dunne, on the other hand, teaches a method for laser scribing semiconductor substrates (Fig. 8, [0036]), wherein the laser spots (pulses 81, Fig. 8, [0035]) are edge-aligned (claim 1: “successive pulses at the substrate do not overlap but are …r contiguous …”) such that there is no spacing (see Fig. 8) between adjacent laser spots (pulses 81, Fig. 8) and the adjacent laser spots (pulses 81, Fig. 8) do not overlap with one another (claim 1).
Dunne further discloses that “a laser pulse 61 ablates material 62 a plume of debris 63 is created. If the subsequent pulse 64 interacts with the debris plume 63, the succeeding laser pulse 64 is partially attenuated because the debris plume partially absorbs the energy of the succeeding laser pulse” (see Fig. 6 and [0005]), “… laser machining with zero overlap substantially prevents pulse-plume interaction, and hence substantially eliminates any loss of energy of a succeeding pulse to a plume produced by a previous pulse” ([0036]), and “it has therefore been demonstrated that dicing with zero overlap according to the invention results in more efficient material removal from the wafer.” ([0045]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would already know from the teachings of Moslehi that “the square or rectangular flat top beam have flat edges, thus creating a flat outline, the overlap can be significantly reduced” (Fig. 28B, [0112]) and maximum scan speed is achieved with zero overlap (Fig. 28C, [0112]). Considering that Moslehi further discloses that “overlapping is minimized or may be completely reduced using a flat top beam“ ([0119]), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to modify the method of Lei-697 to use laser spots that are edge-aligned such that there is no spacing between adjacent laser spots and the adjacent laser spots do not overlap with one another, as taught by Dunne, for efficient material removal during lase scribing process and for fast scanning speed.
Regarding claim 12, Lei-697 in views of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the method of claim 9, wherein
Lei-697 further teaches that the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process (([0047]: “a rectangular shaped two-dimensional top hat beam is used for the laser scribing process.”) comprises using a Gaussian source laser beam (Fig. 4A, [0035]: “The input collimated Gaussian beam 402 travels through a focusing lens 404, and then through a diffractive pattern 406. A top-hat spot 408 results which provides the top hat profile 410.”).
Regarding claim 13, Lei-697 in views of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the method of claim 9, wherein
Lei-697 further teaches that the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process comprises using a femto-second source laser beam ([0049]: “As described above, in an embodiment, a femtosecond-based laser is used as a source for a top hat profile laser beam laser scribing process.”).
Claim 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei -697 (US 2016/0027697 A1) in views of Dunne (US 2010/0099239 A1) and Moslehi (US 2017/0005206 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 9, and 12-13 above, and further in views of Kumar (US 2015/0162243 A1) and Gu (US 2008/0067155 A1).
Regarding claim 3, while Lei-697 in views of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
Lei-697 further teaches that the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process comprises scribing with a laser beam having a wavelength in a range of 510-530 nanometers ([0054]: “preferably in the range of 540 nanometers to 250 nanometers.”), and an output square spot width (kerf width, [0057]) in a range of 6-8 microns ([0057]: “in the range of 6 microns to 10 microns”).
Therefore, the range of wavelengths and the range of spot widths provided by the prior art overlap with the range of wavelengths and the range of spot widths provided in the claimed invention, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), as “Laser parameters may be selected with benefits and advantages such as providing sufficiently high laser intensity to achieve ionization of inorganic dielectrics ( e.g., silicon dioxide) and to minimize delamination and chipping caused by underlayer damage prior to direct ablation of inorganic dielectrics. Also, parameters may be selected to provide meaningful process throughput for industrial applications with precisely controlled ablation width ( e.g., kerf width) and depth” ([0058]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the wavelength and spot width to optimize the scribing process, and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed ranges for the wavelength and spot width, in order to achieve the desired scribing quality (MPEP 2144.05).
Lei-697, Dunne and Moslehi, however, does not teach that the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process comprises an input beam diameter in a range of 8-10 millimeters, and a working distance in a range of 40-55 millimeters.
Gu, on the other hand, teaches a method of laser processing semiconductor substrates (Fig. 2, [0005]-[0006]: including cutting and trimming), wherein the working distance is at least in a range of 40-55 millimeters ([0099]: at least 40 millimeters).
The range of working distances provided by Gu overlaps with the range disclosed the current application, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), as the range of working distances can be optimized by routine experimentation to achieve desired operating conditions for the method (see MPEP 2144.05(II)), as also disclosed by Gu, that having the working distance to be at least 40 millimeters allows access to the devices on the surface of the wafer if required (claim 50: such as contact probes). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be also motivated to adjust the working distance according to the heights of the integrated circuits on the semiconductor wafer. Therefore, the combination of Lei-697, Dunne, Moslehi, and Gu meets the limitation that the working distance is at least in a range of 40-55 millimeters.
Lei-697, Dunne, Moslehi, and Gu do not explicitly disclose that an input beam diameter is in a range of 8-10 millimeters.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be familiar with that the diameter of the femto-second Gaussian input beam would be set to achieve a stable beam-shaping profile for a given working distance, output beam spot size, and laser wavelength, as evidenced by Schlutow (page 2, section 2.1; Schlutow et al., Applications in Laser Material Processing. Materials 2021, 14, 4981, doi.org/10.3390/ma14174981). For example, for typical beam sizes of femtosecond lasers (~5 mm) and a beta factor of 10, the input beam diameter would be at least 6.9 millimeters (see equation 2 of Schlutow) for the ranges provided for the working distance, output spot size and a laser wavelength. Thus, the range provided by combination of Lei-697, Dunne, Moslehi, and Gu covers the range provided by the current application, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), as the range of input beam diameter can be optimized by routine experimentation to achieve desired quality for the rectangular laser spot (see MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Therefore, the combination of Lei-697, Dunne, Moslehi, and Gu meets all the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, while Lei-697 in views of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the method of claim 9, wherein
Lei-697 further teaches that the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process comprises scribing with a laser beam having a wavelength in a range of 510-530 nanometers ([0054]: “preferably in the range of 540 nanometers to 250 nanometers.”), and an output square spot width (kerf width, [0057]) in a range of 6-8 microns ([0057]: “in the range of 6 microns to 10 microns”).
Therefore, the range of wavelengths and the range of spot widths provided by the prior art overlap with the range of wavelengths and the range of spot widths provided in the claimed invention, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), as “Laser parameters may be selected with benefits and advantages such as providing sufficiently high laser intensity to achieve ionization of inorganic dielectrics ( e.g., silicon dioxide) and to minimize delamination and chipping caused by underlayer damage prior to direct ablation of inorganic dielectrics. Also, parameters may be selected to provide meaningful process throughput for industrial applications with precisely controlled ablation width ( e.g., kerf width) and depth” ([0058]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the wavelength and spot width to optimize the scribing process, and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed ranges for the wavelength and spot width, in order to achieve the desired scribing quality (MPEP 2144.05).
Lei-697, Dunne and Moslehi, however, does not teach that the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process comprises an input beam diameter in a range of 8-10 millimeters, and a working distance in a range of 40-55 millimeters.
Gu, on the other hand, teaches a method of laser processing semiconductor substrates (Fig. 2, [0005]-[0006]: including cutting and trimming), wherein the working distance is at least in a range of 40-55 millimeters ([0099]: at least 40 millimeters).
The range of working distances provided by Gu overlaps with the range disclosed the current application, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), as the range of working distances can be optimized by routine experimentation to achieve desired operating conditions for the method (see MPEP 2144.05(II)), as also disclosed by Gu, that having the working distance to be at least 40 millimeters allows access to the devices on the surface of the wafer if required (claim 50: such as contact probes). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be also motivated to adjust the working distance according to the heights of the integrated circuits on the semiconductor wafer. Therefore, the combination of Lei-697, Dunne, Moslehi, and Gu meets the limitation that the working distance is at least in a range of 40-55 millimeters.
Lei-697, Dunne, Moslehi, and Gu do not explicitly disclose that an input beam diameter is in a range of 8-10 millimeters.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be familiar with that the diameter of the femto-second Gaussian input beam would be set to achieve a stable beam-shaping profile for a given working distance, output beam spot size, and laser wavelength, as evidenced by Schlutow (page 2, section 2.1; Schlutow et al., Applications in Laser Material Processing. Materials 2021, 14, 4981, doi.org/10.3390/ma14174981). For example, for typical beam sizes of femtosecond lasers (~5 mm) and a beta factor of 10, the input beam diameter would be at least 6.9 millimeters (see equation 2 of Schlutow) for the ranges provided for the working distance, output spot size and a laser wavelength. Thus, the range provided by combination of Lei-697, Dunne, Moslehi, and Gu covers the range provided by the current application, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), as the range of input beam diameter can be optimized by routine experimentation to achieve desired quality for the rectangular laser spot (see MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Therefore, the combination of Lei-697, Dunne, Moslehi, and Gu meets all the limitations of claim 11.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei -697 (US 2016/0027697 A1) in views of Dunne (US 2010/0099239 A1) and Moslehi (US 2017/0005206 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 9, and 12-13 above, and further in views of Balakrishnan (US 2021/0050262 A1).
Regarding claim 8, while Lei-697 in views of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the method of claim 1,
Lei-697, Dunne, and Moslehi, however, do not explicitly disclose that the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process is an actively-focused laser beam laser scribing process comprising pre-mapping a topography of the semiconductor wafer or a topography of a chuck for supporting the semiconductor wafer, or both.
Balakrishnan, on the other hand, teaches a method for dicing a semiconductor wafer by an actively-focused laser beam (Fig. 1, Abstract) including scribing the regions between the integrated circuits (integrated circuits 206, Fig. 2A-B, [0029]) on the semiconductor wafer (substrate 204, Figs. 2A-B, [0029]) with a laser beam (Figs. 2A-B, [0036]). Balakrishnan further teaches that the laser scribing process is an actively-focused laser beam laser scribing process ([0036]) comprising pre-mapping a topography of the semiconductor wafer or a topography of a chuck for supporting the semiconductor wafer, or both ([0044] and claim 12).
Balakrishnan discloses that an actively-focused laser beam laser scribing process including pre-mapping the topography of the semiconductor wafer or the topography of the chuck for supporting the semiconductor wafer, or both would provide the benefit of compensating for chuck or substrate thickness variations in a laser dicing process ([0023]) by actively adjusting the laser focus according to the topography ([0026]), and thereby increasing the uniformity of the scribe profile. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to incorporate an actively-focused laser beam laser scribing process comprising pre-mapping a topography of the semiconductor wafer or a topography of a chuck for supporting the semiconductor wafer, or both, as disclosed by Balakrishnan, into the method of Lei-697 in views of Dunne and Moslehi to increase the uniformity of the scribing process.
Regarding claim 14, while Lei-697 in views of Dunne and Moslehi teaches the method of claim 9,
Lei-697, Dunne, and Moslehi, however, do not explicitly disclose that the rectangular laser spot-based laser scribing process is an actively-focused laser beam laser scribing process comprising pre-mapping a topography of the semiconductor wafer or a topography of a chuck for supporting the semiconductor wafer, or both.
Balakrishnan, on the other hand, teaches a method for dicing a semiconductor wafer by an actively-focused laser beam (Fig. 1, Abstract) including scribing the regions between the integrated circuits (integrated circuits 206, Fig. 2A-B, [0029]) on the semiconductor wafer (substrate 204, Figs. 2A-B, [0029]) with a laser beam (Figs. 2A-B, [0036]). Balakrishnan further teaches that the laser scribing process is an actively-focused laser beam laser scribing process ([0036]) comprising pre-mapping a topography of the semiconductor wafer or a topography of a chuck for supporting the semiconductor wafer, or both ([0044] and claim 12).
Balakrishnan discloses that an actively-focused laser beam laser scribing process including pre-mapping the topography of the semiconductor wafer or the topography of the chuck for supporting the semiconductor wafer, or both would provide the benefit of compensating for chuck or substrate thickness variations in a laser dicing process ([0023]) by actively adjusting the laser focus according to the topography ([0026]), and thereby increasing the uniformity of the scribe profile. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to incorporate an actively-focused laser beam laser scribing process comprising pre-mapping a topography of the semiconductor wafer or a topography of a chuck for supporting the semiconductor wafer, or both, as disclosed by Balakrishnan, into the method of Lei-697 in views of Dunne and Moslehi to increase the uniformity of the scribing process.
Response to Arguments
It has been acknowledged that the applicant amended claims 1, 9, and 12-13 per response dated on 6/18/2026. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been fully considered. The Examiner agrees with the Applicant that the amended independent claims (claim 1 and claim 9) now disclosing the limitations that “the laser spots are edge-aligned such that there is no spacing between adjacent laser spots and the adjacent laser spots do not overlap with one another” overcomes the prior art of the final office action mailed on 4/21/2026. However, claims 1 and claims 9 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the combination of new prior art Dunne (US 2010/0099239 A1) and Moslehi (US 2017/0005206 A1) with Lei-697 (US 2016/0027697 A1 which is the earlier publication of the patent US 9,349,648 B2 (Lei-648)). As detailed in the office action above, Lei-697 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 9, except the limitations above. As also detailed in the office action above, the combination of Dunne and Moslehi provides an obvious motivation to modify the method of Lei-697 to include the limitations above in the method of Lei-697. Accordingly, claims 1 and claim 9, and all their dependent claims are rejected by Lei-697, Dunne, and Moslehi or their combinations with the other prior art of the final office action.
Similarly, claims 1 and 3-8 are again rejected due to double patenting, but this time based on Lei-648 in combination with Dunne and Moslehi.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that incorporating more limitations regarding the laser spots might render independent claim 1 and 9 to overcome their rejections.
The Examiner is available for an interview at Applicant’s convenience if the Applicant would like to discuss the application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Karasaki (US 2018/0197777 A1) teaches a laser-based dicing method using rectangular laser spots with smaller than 20% overlap between pulses, which is relevant to all claims.
Rana (US 2016/0093763 A1) teaches a laser-based trench formation method using rectangular laser spots with completely reduced overlap, which is relevant to all claims.
Sercel (US 2019/0279905 A1) teaches a laser-based lift-off process using rectangular laser spots with no overlap, which is relevant to all claims.
Abelo (US 2007/0272668 A1) teaches a laser-scribing method using rectangular laser spots, which is relevant to all claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ILKER OZDEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5775. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, William B Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/ILKER NMN OZDEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
