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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/28/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 1/28/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US20140307299A1) in view of Okuma (US11465235B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
932
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Matsumoto
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches a laser beam applying apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a holding table (40) for holding a workpiece (42) thereon;
a laser beam applying unit (1A) for applying a laser beam (laser light) to the workpiece (42) held on the holding table (40); and
a controller (30) for controlling the laser beam applying unit (1A),
wherein the laser beam applying unit (1A) includes
a laser beam source (10) for emitting the laser beam (laser light),
a spatial light modulator (20) for modulating the laser beam ([0020] laser light) emitted from the laser beam source (10), according to phase patterns ([0062] present the modulation pattern in the spatial light modulator 20), and emitting the modulated laser beam ([0042] output a phase-modulated laser light), and
a beam focusing assembly (21, 22, 23, 25) for focusing the laser beam modulated by the spatial light modulator (20, [0042] output a phase-modulated laser light)) and applying the focused laser beam to the workpiece (42, Fig. 1),
the controller (30) includes
a plurality of phase patterns (([0081] a plurality of modulation pattern) representing respective different positions in a plane of the workpiece (42) where the laser beam (laser light) is applied when the phase patterns are displayed on the spatial light modulator ([0045] a modulation pattern such as a CGH, expressed in a DOE, is to be presented in the spatial light modulator 20), and
a phase pattern control section ([0081] switching device, replacing driving device 28) for switching to predetermined phase patterns among the phase patterns ([0081] in the case where a pattern is dynamically switched by use of a plurality of DOEs, a switching device is used in place of a driving device) as the phase patterns displayed on the spatial light modulator ([0045] a modulation pattern such as a CGH, expressed in a DOE, is to be presented in the spatial light modulator 20),
wherein an angle at which the focus beam is applied to the workpiece is changed by the phase patterns ([0060] the phase value of the one pixel is changed so as to bring its light condensing state closer to a desired state) and
wherein the laser beam is able to two-dimensionally scan the plane of the workpiece (42) when the phase pattern control section switches between the phase patterns displayed on the spatial light modulator ([0048] laser light scans sample 42).
Matsumoto is silent on a plate-shaped workpiece and a phase pattern storage section for storing a plurality of phase patterns.
Okuma teaches a plate-shaped workpiece (1, Col. 6 lines 1-15 a planar member, taken to be plate shaped) and a phase pattern storage section (510) for storing a plurality of phase patterns (Col. 23 lines 1-20 storage 510 stores a phase pattern to be displayed; P0, P1, P2).
Matsumoto and Okuma are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser beams. It would have been obvious to have modified Matsumoto to incorporate the teachings of Okuma to have a plate-shaped workpiece and a phase pattern storage section storing a plurality of patterns in order to be able to form relevant electronic components such as semiconductor substrates formed of semiconductor materials and piezoelectric substrates formed of piezoelectric materials (Okuma Col. 6 lines 1-20) and to store patterns that are able to modulate multiple portions or sections of the laser light to be applied (Okuma Col. 23 lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto and Okuma teach the laser beam applying apparatus according to claim 1, and Matsumoto teaches further comprising: a moving mechanism for moving the holding table (40, being movable) and a focused spot ([0039] light condensing point Fig. 1) of the laser beam relatively to each other ([0039] movable stage 40 which is configured to be movable in an X direction, a Y direction (horizontal direction), and a Z direction (vertical direction)).
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US20140307299A1) and Okuma (US11465235B2).as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US11935863B2).
PNG
media_image2.png
340
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5A of Kobayashi
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto and Okuma teach the laser beam applying apparatus according to claim 1, and Matsumoto teaches the laser beam (laser light) is able to two-dimensionally scan a plane (42) when the phase pattern control section switches between the phase patterns displayed on the spatial light modulator ([0048] laser light scans sample 42), but is silent on wherein the plate-shaped workpiece includes a board with a plurality of semiconductor chips mounted thereon with bumps interposed between the board and a surface of each of the semiconductor chips, and the phase patterns stored in the phase pattern storage section include phase patterns such that, when the phase patterns are displayed on the spatial light modulator, the positions where the laser beam is applied as represented by the phase patterns indicate respective regions corresponding to the semiconductor chips on the board, and the laser beam is able to two-dimensionally scan a plane of the board in regions corresponding to the semiconductor chips to reflow the bumps included in areas irradiated with the laser beam.
Kobayashi teaches wherein the plate-shaped workpiece (40) includes a board (20) with a plurality of semiconductor chips (30) mounted thereon with bumps interposed between the board and a surface of each of the semiconductor chips (Col. 4 lines 20-50 semiconductor chips 30 are arrayed on a board 20 with solder bumps 32 interposed therebetween), and
the phase patterns stored in the phase pattern storage section include phase patterns such that, when the phase patterns are displayed on the spatial light modulator, the positions where the laser beam (LA) is applied as represented by the phase patterns indicate respective regions (A) corresponding to the semiconductor chips on the board (30, Fig. 5A), and
the laser beam (LA) is able to two-dimensionally scan a plane of the board (20) in regions corresponding to the semiconductor chips (30) to reflow the bumps (32) included in areas irradiated with the laser beam (A, Fig. 5A, Col. 9 lines 1-25).
Matsumoto, Okuma, and Kobayashi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser beams. It would have been obvious to have modified Matsumoto and Okuma to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi to apply a laser to a workpiece with a board, a plurality of semiconductor chips with bumps between, where the phase patterns correspond to regions corresponding to the semiconductor chips, of which the laser beam is able to scan the semiconductor chips to reflow the bumps so that a laser beam power and pattern may be set locally in regards to an area having bumps on the semiconductor chip which allows for creating an improved workpiece while not warping and wastefully heating unnecessary areas, preventing failures in the created device (Kobayashi Col. 11 lines 20-50).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US20140307299A1) and Okuma (US11465235B2).as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kishimoto (US112249374).
Regarding claim 4 , Matsumoto and Okuma teach the laser beam applying apparatus according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein a period of time to switch one of the phase patterns to another of the phase patterns is one second.
Kishimoto teaches a period of time to switch one of the phase patterns to another of the phase patterns is one second (Col. 16 lines 50-65 1 second laser irradiation, taken to be the equivalent of switching phase patterns for one second in applications specification [0064], where switching for a period of one second occurs by moving the laser irradiation).
Matsumoto, Okuma, and Kishimoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser beams. It would have been obvious to have modified Matsumoto and Okuma to incorporate the teachings of Kishimoto to have the switching period be one second so that the desired work piece, such as a semiconductor, receive the correct amount of laser light (Kishimoto Col. 16 lines 50-65).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US20140307299A1) and Okuma (US11465235B2).as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirose (US12124215).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto and Okuma teach the laser beam applying apparatus according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein a period of time to switch one of the phase patterns to another of the phase patterns is 30 milliseconds.
Hirose teaches wherein a period of time to switch one of the phase patterns to another of the phase patterns is 30 milliseconds (Col. 16 lines 15-30 30 milliseconds, a pattern change of 30 frames per second).
Matsumoto, Okuma, and Hirose are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser beams. It would have been obvious to have modified Matsumoto and Okuma to incorporate the teachings of Hirose to have the period of switch phase patterns be 30 milliseconds to allow the irradiated light to be applied to the surface for the amount of time required for phase modulation (Hirose Col. 16 lines 15-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants’ argument that the previously cited references do not teach the amended claim limitation of claim 1, Matsumoto is understood to teach the limitation, where the phase patterns are configured to change a phase of at least one pixel of the beam, which the changing of the phase would be understood to be the equivalent of changing an angle of the beam that is applied to the workpiece.
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 ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/11/2026
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights