FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/16/2026 has been entered. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 6-16 are newly added. Claims 1, 3-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/20/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 & 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, lines 13-16, should be revised as follows for sake of clarity:
-- a first imaging unit configured to image the laser beam emitted from the first spatial light modulator, and irradiate the target object with [[the]] a respective first resulting laser beam; and
a second imaging unit configured to image the laser beam emitted from the second spatial light modulator, and irradiate the target object with [[the]] a respective second resulting laser beam.--;
Claim 9, lines 4-9 should be revised as follows for sake of clarity:
-- wherein the first imaging unit is configured to irradiate a first set of the semiconductor chips with the resulting laser beam imaged from the first spatial light modulator, wherein bumps are reflowed by the laser beam to connect the first set of semiconductor chips to the substrate; and
wherein the second imaging unit is configured to irradiate a second set of the semiconductor chips with the resulting laser beam imaged from the second spatial light modulator, wherein bumps are reflowed by the laser beam to connect the second set of semiconductor chips to the substrate.--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an imaging unit configured to image the laser beam…” in claim 1;
“a first imaging unit configured to image the laser beam…” in claim 4;
“a second imaging unit configured to image the laser beam” in claim 4.
These limitations meet the 3-prong analysis for determining interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (a) the limitations use the term “unit” as a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function; (b) the term “unit” is modified by functional language “configured to image the laser beam…”; and (c) the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (the term “imaging” does not impart any structural detail to the term “unit”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 13-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “the first imaging unit” and “the second imaging unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Note, claim 1 upon which claim 13 depends only introduced a singular “imaging unit”. It is unclear how the “first imaging unit” and “second imaging unit” relate to the “imaging unit” of claim 1.
Claims 14-15 are rejected for the same reason as claim 13.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (KR 2016-0132227 A, see previously provided English translation), in view of Inoue (US 2016/0062128 A1, previously cited).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kong discloses a laser beam irradiating apparatus (Fig. 4) for irradiating a target object with a laser beam (an object to be cut by the laser, Para. 0001-2, Fig. 4), the laser beam irradiating apparatus comprising:
a laser oscillator 110 configured to emit the laser beam (Fig. 4, “laser generator”, Para. 0046);
a first polarization beam splitter 130 (PBS1, Fig. 4, Para. 0046, 0050-51) configured to separate polarized components of the laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator into p-polarized light and s-polarized light (Id. “the first polarization beam splitter (130) can separate the laser beam into multiple laser beams of p-waves and s-waves having mutually perpendicular polarizations in the same ratio”; Para. 0057);
a first spatial light modulator 140/DOE1 on which one polarized component separated by the first polarization beam splitter is made incident (the p-polarized beam), and that is configured to modulate the incident laser beam according to a first phase pattern, and emit the resulting laser beam (Fig. 4, Para. 0053-54, “A diffractive optical element (DOE) (140) can modulate the phase of each of the separated multiple laser beams”; “a first diffractive optical element (DOE1, 140)”; in Fig. 4, DOE1 modulates the p-polarized beam as shown; Para. 0058);
a second spatial light modulator 140/DOE2 on which another polarized component separated by the first polarization beam splitter is made incident (the s-polarized beam), and that is configured to modulate the incident laser beam according to a second phase pattern, and emit the resulting laser beam (Para. 0053-54, 0058, Fig. 4);
a second polarization beam splitter 150 (PBS2) configured to synthesize the laser beam emitted from the first spatial light modulator 140/DOE1 and the laser beam emitted from the second spatial light modulator 140/DOE2, by transmitting the laser beam emitted from the first spatial light modulator, and reflecting the laser beam emitted from the second spatial light modulator (Fig. 4, Para. 0054, “each of the plurality of laser beams may be phase-modulated by passing through a first diffractive optical element (DOE1, 140) and a second diffractive optical element (DOE2, 140), and may be combined into one beam through a second polarizing beam splitter (PBS2, 150)”; Fig. 4, the beam from DOE1 is transmitted through the PBS2, and the beam from the DOE2 is reflected by the PBS2 as shown); and
an imaging unit 160 (F-theta lens, Fig. 4) configured to image the laser beam synthesized by the second polarization beam splitter, and irradiate the target object with the resulting laser beam (Fig. 4, Para. 0055, "a Fourier transform unit (160) that performs laser cutting by reproducing a continuous line through Fourier transform of a combined single laser beam. The Fourier transform unit (160) can perform a Fourier transform by passing a combined laser beam through an F-theta lens”).
Kong fails to disclose further comprising: a first half-wave plate disposed between the first polarization beam splitter and the first spatial light modulator; and a second half-wave plate disposed between the first polarization beam splitter and the second spatial light modulator.
Kong does teach a half-wave plate 131 that is between the laser oscillator 110 and the first polarization beam splitter 130/PBS1 (Fig. 4, Para. 0050-52).
Inoue teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1-3, laser machining apparatus, Para. 0007) including a polarizing beam splitter 10A, and a first spatial light modulator 30 (“SLM 30”) and a second spatial light modulator (“SLM 50”), wherein a half-wave plate 8 (“1/2-wavelength plate”) can be disposed between the polarization beam splitter or the first spatial light modulator and second spatial light modulator (Para. 0027, “the 1/2-wavelength plate may be arranged on at least one of an optical path of the first irradiation light and an optical path of the second irradiation light”, Para. 0056-59).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus of Kong, to include half-wave plates are disposed between the first polarization beam splitter and the first spatial light modulator and second spatial light modulator, as taught by Inoue, in order to provide means to rotate the polarization plane of each of the laser beams from the first polarization splitter prior to reaching each of the first and second spatial light modulators (Inoue Para. 0043, Para. 0056-59). Inoue teaches that the half-wave plate can be arranged on “at least one of” the optical paths of the first and second irradiation light paths (Inoue Para. 0027), and consequently, suggests that both paths can have the half-wave plate if so desired. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include half-wave plates for each of the polarized light beams from the first polarization beam splitter in order to separately rotate each laser beam polarization plane to a desired orientation.
Regarding claim 3, Kong in view of Inoue teaches the laser beam irradiating apparatus according to claim 1, and Kong further teaches wherein the imaging unit 160 is an imaging function of the first spatial light modulator 140/DOE1 and an imaging function of the second spatial light modulator 140/DOE2 (Para. 0055, 0058, “the combined laser beam is Fourier transformed through an F-theta lens to reproduce a uniform and continuous line on the cutting target, thereby enabling laser cutting”).
Regarding claim 6, Kong in view of Inoue teaches the laser beam irradiating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the imaging unit 160 is an imaging lens (F-theta lens, Fig. 4, Para. 0055).
Regarding claim 12, Kong in view of Inoue teaches laser beam irradiating apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first spatial light modulator is a liquid crystal on silicon-spatial light modulator (LCOS- SLM) and the second light modulator is a liquid crystal on silicon-spatial light modulator (LCOS-SLM).
Kong does discuss use of LCOS-SLM being known in the art (Para. 0007).
Inoue teaches the laser beam apparatus wherein the first spatial light modulator 30 is a liquid crystal on silicon-spatial light modulator (LCOS- SLM) (Para. 0044, “the first reflective SLM 30 is an LCOS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) SLM having parallel-aligned nematic liquid crystal”) and the second light modulator 50 is a liquid crystal on silicon-spatial light modulator (LCOS-SLM) (Para. 0046, “the second reflective SLM 50 is an LCOS type SLM having parallel-aligned nematic liquid crystal”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the apparatus of Kong in view of Inoue, the first and second spatial light modulators as LCOS-SLMs, as taught by Inoue, in order to utilize a known type of SLM that is capable of modulating the phase and strength of the respective polarization component of each SLM in a known manner (Inoue Para. 0044, 0046-47). It is noted that the use of a known prior art structure (in this case the use of liquid crystal on silicon-spatial light modulator as taught by Inoue), to obtain predictable results (in this case to modulate the polarization components of the respective separated laser lights) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7-11 are allowed.
Claims 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 4, the closest prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in combination with other claimed limitations, a laser beam irradiating apparatus for irradiating a target object comprising: a first spatial light modulator configured to modulate one of a p-polarized or s-polarized component of a split laser beam according to a first phase pattern, a second spatial light modulator configured to modulate the other of the p-polarized or s-polarized component of the split laser beam according to a second phase pattern, a first imaging unit configured to image the laser beam emitted from the first spatial light modulator to irradiate the target object, and a second imaging unit configured to image the laser beam emitted from the second spatial light modulator to irradiate the target object (i.e. the same target object).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but not persuasive and moot in view of the new grounds of rejection that was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed below and in the body of the rejections, at the appropriate locations.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues (Remarks filed 03/16/2026) that prior art Inoue relied upon for teaching the half-wave plates fails to teach or suggest first and second half-wave plates for both of the laser paths from the first and second spatial light modulators (Remarks pg. 7). However, this argument is unpersuasive. Inoue discusses that “the 1/2-wavelength plate may be arranged on at least one of an optical path of the first irradiation light and an optical path of the second irradiation light” (Inoue Para. 0027, 0056-59), which implies that each path can have the ½ wavelength plate if so desired. Half-wave plates are well-known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art, if it were deemed necessary or desired, would know to arrange half-wave plates in the locations taught in Inoue in the apparatus of Kong in order to rotate the polarization plane of the split laser beam. Doing so would require only routine skill in the art to achieve a predictable result.
Regarding independent claim 4, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Consequently the rejection of claim 4 is withdrawn.
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 ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights