DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
change claim 1 line 32 accordingly: “guides the detection light with the specific wavelength to”
change claim 4 accordingly: a combiner that causes the detection light with the specific wavelength that
change claim 4 line 11-12 accordingly: “that splits the reflected light
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “wide wavelength” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wide” is not defined by the claim, the specification provides different ways regarding ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example applicant par. 39 provides a standard of “100 to 2000 nm” and one of ordinary skill would understand how the claim is infringed. However par. 39 also states “it suffices for the wide wavelength band to be a range that allows selective extraction of plural beams of detection light with wavelengths different from each other.” This latter way does not appear to provide sufficient clarity regarding as to when the claim is infringed.
Claim 2 lines 4-5 recites “detection light”. It is unclear if the line 4-5 detection light refers to (1) the detection light emitted from the detection light source with the wide wavelength, or (2) the detection light with the specific wavelength.
Claim 2 line 8 recites “the detection light”. It is unclear if the line 8 detection light refers to (1) the detection light emitted from the detection light source with the wide wavelength, or (2) the detection light with the specific wavelength.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the detection light with a wavelength that maximizes an amount of received light" in lines 3-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 lines 12-13 recites “the detection light”. It is unclear if the line 12-13 detection light refers to (1) the detection light emitted from the detection light source with the wide wavelength, or (2) the detection light with the specific wavelength.
Claim 4 lines 12-15 recites “the detection light that has passed through the condensed point position adjuster and the beam condenser at the upper surface of the wafer”. It was previously recited in claim 4 that the detection light has “merged”. Thus the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear because it appears that the detected light has been combined or merged with something else. The phrase “the detection light emitted by the detection light source and has passed through the selector and a first beam splitter sequentially to merge into between” is considered to be broad regarding in the sense the claim does not recite what element is being merged with the reflected light.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the split reflected light" in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the split reflected light” also appears in line 26.
Claim 5 line 10 recites “from reflection of the detection light”. It is unclear if the instant claim 5 “reflection” refers to (1) the claim 1 line 35 “reflection” or (2) is a second reflection.
Claim 5 lines 10-11 recite “the detection light”. Claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends, recites “detection light of a wide wavelength band” and “detection light with a specific wavelength”. It is unclear if the instant claim 5 “reflection light” refers to the former or the latter.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the irradiation" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 lines 18-20 recites the limitation "the position of the reflected light detected by the image sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only antecedent basis for the position of the reflected light measured by the image sensor.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 8,581,144 B2 (Furuta).
Regarding claim 1, Furuta discloses (see figs. 1-2) a laser processing apparatus 1 comprising: a chuck table 2 (see col. 5, ll. 60-65) that holds a wafer 10 (see col. 8, ll. 25-30); a laser beam irradiation unit 3 that irradiates (see col. 3, ll. 45-50) the wafer 10 held by the chuck table 2 with a laser beam (see abstract, top); and a feed mechanism (see col. 4, l. 66 to col. 5 ,l. 7) that executes processing feed of the chuck table and the laser beam irradiation unit in an X-axis direction (see col. 5, ll. 19-27) and a Y-axis direction (see col. 5, ll. 19-27) orthogonal (see fig. 1, bottom) to the X-axis direction, wherein the laser beam irradiation unit 3 includes a laser oscillator 31 that emits (see col. 5, ll. 30-35; see fig. 2, top) the laser beam, a beam condenser 33 that condenses (see col. 5, ll. 35-40) the laser beam emitted by the laser oscillator 31 and positions a condensed point (“focal position of the processing laser beam”; see col. 8, ll. 50-55; this is also referred to the focal “point” of the processing laser beam at col. 2, ll. 10-15, such focal point is used to cleavage a groove to create individual integrated circuits from the wafer, see col. 1, ll. 35-45) to the wafer held by the chuck table, a condensed point position adjuster (actuator 35 on top of condenser 33 case 34; the adjuster may optionally include structures with laser unit 3 as pointed out in col. 5, ll. 55-65) that is disposed between the laser oscillator 31 and the beam condenser 33 (actuator 35 is between oscillator 31 and condenser 33 as shown in fig. 2) and adjusts a position (see col. 5, ll. 50-55) of the condensed point, and an upper surface position detector 44 that detects an upper surface position (see col. 6, ll. 5-10; the “surface displacement” of wafer 10 is detected that is a change in height of the wafer) of the wafer 10, wherein the upper surface position detector includes a detection light source (“light source” at col. 6, l. 14; this is shown as light source 41 in schematic fig. 2) that emits (see “emerging” at col 6, l. 14) detection light of a wide wavelength band (see col. 6, ll. 5-20), and a selector (diffraction grating or prism for example; see col. 6, ll. 15-25; this is shown as selection section 45 in schematic fig. 2) that selects detection light with a specific wavelength (see “specific wavelength” at col. 6, ll. 15-20) from the detection light emitted (the light “emitted” by source 41) by the detection light source, and the upper surface position detector selects, by the selector, the detection light with the specific wavelength in the detection light emitted by the detection light source, and guides (via structures 43,42,32,33; the detection light is coaxial with the laser beam processing light from oscillator 31 downstream of 42; see col. 7, ll. 15-20) the detection light to an upper surface (see col. 7, ll. 15-23 and fig. 2) of the wafer 10 held by the chuck table 2 and calculates (see col. 9, ll. 30-35) the upper surface position (“surface displacement”; see col. 9, ll. 30-35; this is the surface position regarding wherein to place the condensed point or laser focal point, in the direction perpendicular to the wafer 10, in order to properly form the grooves in the wafer 10 as discussed above; see col. 5, ll. 50-55) of the wafer by reflected light arising from reflection at the upper surface of the wafer (light from the detection light source is reflected off the upper surface of wafer 10 in fig. 2 and routed to detection unit 44 via structures 42,32 in fig. 2; see col. 6, ll. 50-65).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furuta as evidenced by US 5289114 (Nakamura).
Regarding claim 3, Furuta discloses the selector selects the detection light with a wavelength that maximizes an amount of received light.
The claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114.
It has also been held that, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01. As Furuta teaches substantially identical structure as the claimed invention, Claim 3 is rejected as anticipated. The prior art need only be capable of performing the intended use “the selector selects the detection light with a wavelength that maximizes an amount of received light”. For example, the selector of Furuta discussed at col. 6, ll. 15-25 is capable of selecting the wavelength of the plurality of wavelengths that has the most light received at some receiving point after the detection light has passed through the selector. For example, for each of the wavelengths of the “diffraction grating” or the “plurality of light sources” (col. 6, ll. 15-25) the measurement of photodetectors 442a and/or 442b in Furuta fig. 2 can be measured and displayed to arrive at the maximum amount of light (this is evidenced by Nakamura showing unit 68 displaying the output of photodetector 58).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Furuta or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Furuta in view of US 2009/0291544 A1 (Watanabe).
Regarding claim 4, Furuta discloses (see fig. 2) wherein the upper surface position detector 44 includes a combiner 42 that causes the detection light that is the detection light emitted by the detection light source 41 and has passed through the selector (diffraction grating or prism for example; see col. 6, ll. 15-25) and a first beam splitter 43 sequentially to merge into between the laser oscillator 31 and the condensed point position adjuster 35, a second beam splitter 441 that splits reflected light arising from reflection of the detection light that has passed through the condensed point position adjuster 35 and the beam condenser 33 at the upper surface (see col. 7, ll. 15-23 and fig. 2) of the wafer 10 held by the chuck table 2 into a first optical path (at 444) and a second optical path (at 443) through the combiner 42 and the first beam splitter 43, a filter 445 (see par. 55) that is disposed in the first optical path (at 444) and causes a part of the split reflected light (the reflected light in the first optical path) to pass through the filter 445, a first light receiving element 442b that receives the reflected light that has passed through the filter 445, and a second light receiving element 442a that is disposed in the second optical path (at 443) and receives whole (the reflected light in the second optical path is not split again) of the split reflected light, and the upper surface position detector 44 calculates (see col. 9, ll. 30-35) the upper surface position of the wafer 10 from comparison between an amount (see “light quantities” at col. 9, ll. 25-30) of received light at the first light receiving element 442b and an amount (see “light quantities” at col. 9, ll. 25-30) of received light at the second light receiving element 442a.
It is thought that Furuta discloses the phrase “a second light receiving element … receives whole of the split reflected light” as discussed above. However in the scenario one of ordinary skill would not consider this to be so, it can be said Furuta does not disclose “a second light receiving element … receives whole of the split reflected light” (Furuta focusing lens 443 focuses the reflected light in the second optical path at “almost 100%”; see col. 7, ll. 35-30).
Watanabe teaches a height position detecting means (see par. 9) and further teaches (see fig. 2) a light receiving element 853 receives whole (focusing lens 852 focuses or converges at 100%; this is similar to applicant par. 48) of the split reflected light 85a (of reflected light analyzing means 85). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the focusing percentage (of focusing lens 852; i.e. at 100%) of Watanabe for the focusing percentage (of focusing lens 443; i.e., almost 100%) of Furuta for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of focusing light to be provided to a light receiving element for improved quality of measurement (see Watanabe par. 4, bottom).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta in view of JP 2007040714 A (Naoaki).
Regarding claim 2, Furuta discloses the current invention as claimed and discussed above including allow transmission of detection light (from detection light source; (“light source” at col. 6, l. 14; this is shown as light source 41 in schematic fig. 2) with specific wavelengths (see “a plurality of wavelengths” at col. 6, l. 10) different from each other (one of ordinary skill would understand “plurality of wavelengths” to comprise two or more wavelengths difference from each other), and selects an optical path for the detection light to select (via the optical parametric oscillator, the prism or the diffraction grating; see col. 6, ll. 10-20) the detection light with the specific wavelength (see “specific wavelength” at col. 6, ll. 15-20).
Furuta does not disclose the selector includes a plurality of band-pass filters that allow the transmission, and selects any of the plurality of band-pass filters and positions the selected band-pass filter to the optical path.
Naoaki teaches an optical measuring device (see abstract and p. 1, bottom) and further teaches a selector 22 includes a plurality of band-pass filters (32a to 32f) that allow a transmission (of selected wavelength along an optical path of a light source, see abstract; the selected wavelength corresponds with the band pass filter selected by moving filter plate 22a, see p. 8, top and middle; the filter plate is shown at 72 in fig. 3(b) such plate comprising the band pass filters 32a-32f), and selects any of the plurality of band-pass filters 32a-32f and positions (via drive unit; see p. 8, middle) the selected band-pass filter to an optical path (see abstract). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the selector with band pass filters of Naoaki for the selector of Furuta that includes a prism or diffraction grating for example for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of selecting a specific wavelength of detecting light from a plurality of wavelengths of the detecting light with reduced costs (one of ordinary skill understands that band pass filters can be more cost effective than prisms and gratings (see pertinent prior art infra).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta in view of Pub. No. US 2005/0236381 A1 (Nomura).
Furuta discloses the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Furuta does not disclose an irradiating end part that irradiates the upper surface of the wafer with the detection light emitted by the detection light source with an angle α of incidence, a light receiving end part that receives reflected light arising from reflection of the detection light with which the irradiation is executed from the irradiating end part at the upper surface of the wafer, and an image sensor that measures a position of the reflected light received by the light receiving end part, and the upper surface position detector calculates the upper surface position of the wafer on a basis of the position of the reflected light detected by the image sensor.
Nomura teaches an upper surface position detector 7 (see figs. 1 and 9) and further teaches (see figs. 9-12) an irradiating end part (part extending from structure 72 that emits light in form of dashed line in fig. 10) that irradiates the upper surface (see fig. 10) of a wafer W with a detection light (dashed line emitted from part 72 in fig. 10) emitted by a detection light source 72 with an angle α (see fig. 10) of incidence, a light receiving end part (part extending from structure 73) that receives reflected light (see dashed line in fig. 10) arising from reflection of the detection light with which the irradiation is executed from the irradiating end part at the upper surface of the wafer W, and an image sensor 732 that measures a position of the reflected light received by the light receiving end part , and the upper surface position detector calculates (see par. 59, middle) the upper surface position (there is a change h in the height of the wafer because the surface of the wafer W is not uniform; this knowledge helps of guide the focal point of the laser with the most energy to the proper vertical position in order to form groove, see par. 80, in order to create individual integrated circuits, see par. 2; this is similar to Furuta col. 1, ll. 15-20) of the wafer W on a basis of the position of the reflected light detected by the image sensor 732.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Furuta with an irradiating end part that irradiates the upper surface of the wafer with the detection light emitted by the detection light source with an angle α of incidence, a light receiving end part that receives reflected light arising from reflection of the detection light with which the irradiation is executed from the irradiating end part at the upper surface of the wafer, and an image sensor that measures a position of the reflected light received by the light receiving end part, and the upper surface position detector calculates the upper surface position of the wafer on a basis of the position of the reflected light detected by the image sensor as taught by Nomura in order to facilitate improved laser beam processing accuracy (see Nomura par. 11, bottom). Furuta points out in col. 7, ll. 55-60 that the upper surface position detector is not limited to that disclosed and thus Furuta in view of Nomura results in (1) replacing the upper surface position detector of Furuta with that of Nomura, or (2) including the upper surface detector of Nomura with Furuta. For example Nomura uses a single wavelength detection light (see par. 57 middle) that corresponds with the “specific wavelength” of Furuta discussed in the claim 1 analysis above.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
band-pass filter interchangeable with prism or diffraction grating discussed in Furuta: US 3898042 (col. 9, ll. 10-20); and
wavelength selector similar to applicant fig. 7: US 11137358.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights