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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues, “Cromwell does not disclose or suggest a time integral of a light amount of laser light for annealing with which a unit area in a crack region including the detected crack is irradiated”.
The Examiner takes the following position with respect to the position of the Applicant;
Nowhere in the present claim language has there shown or demonstrated a specific time range or interval connected to operation of the claimed method.
Cromwell shows (column #2, line 33-36), “burnishing process, disks with large defects may be immediately rejected without requiring additional time-intensive testing of the defective disk”. Furthermore, Cromwell shows, (column #3, line 31-36), “The large spot advantageously covers a large area over the surface of the disk thereby minimizing the testing time. While the large unfocused spot size causes a reduced sensitivity in the laser scatterometer, the sensitivity is adequate to detect large defects. Thus, the laser scatterometer may be used to quickly detect large defects, for example, during the burnishing process”. The Examiner notes that these are not only demonstrations of Cromwell’s exposure of laser light at different time intervals and for further demonstrations of the fact; thus, the Examiner is requesting the Applicant view Cormwell’s claimed invention as whole for further examples.
Also, it would appear that the Applicant is suggesting that time intervals/ranges are important to the production of the claimed method. However, the Examiner takes the position that this has not been specifically demonstrated or stated.
Applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that Hawryluk fails to disclose or suggest "a control unit configured to control the optical unit and the scanning section to perform laser annealing treatment on the substrate after detecting the crack, the laser annealing treatment comprising scanning the main surface of the substrate with the laser light in order that a time integral of a light amount of the laser light with which a unit area in a crack region including the crack detected by the inspection unit is irradiated is smaller than a time integral of a light amount of the laser light with which a unit area in a region different from the crack region is irradiated."
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but respectfully disagrees;
The notes that the previous Non-Final (and repeated in the this action) relies on Knerer to teach a method of comprising grinding and thinning the substrate (paragraph 0280).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 #1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cromwell (U.S. Pat. No, 6,624,707 B1), hereinafter referred to as "Cromwell" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Watson et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0240336), hereinafter referred to as "Watson".
Cromwell shows, with respect to claim #1, method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising: detecting a crack generated on a main surface of a substrate; and performing laser annealing treatment on the substrate, the laser annealing treatment comprising scanning the main surface of the substrate with the laser light in order that a time integral of a light amount of laser light for annealing with which a unit area in a crack region including the detected crack is irradiated is smaller than a time integral of a light amount of the laser light with which a unit area in a region different from the crack region is irradiated (column #2, line 26-43; column #3, line 37-42, 53-63).
Cromwell substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Cromwell fails to explicitly state, with respect to claim #1, a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising performing laser annealing treatment on the substrate after detecting the crack.
Watson teaches, with respect to claim #1, a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising performing laser annealing treatment (fig. #1, item 106) (paragraph 0021, 0029) on the substrate after detecting the crack (fig. #1, item 106) (paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, to modified the invention of Cromwell , with the modifications of the invention of Watson, which teaches, a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising performing laser annealing treatment on the substrate after detecting the crack, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a corrected reticle that can be used along with various lithography tools to pattern another wafer in operation, as taught by Watson.
//
Claim #2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cromwell (U.S. Pat. No, 6,624,707 B1), hereinafter referred to as "Cromwell" as modified by Watson et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0240336), hereinafter referred to as "Watson" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Roy et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0247804), hereinafter referred to as "Roy".
Cromwell as modified by Watson, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Cromwell as modified by Watson, fails to show, with respect to claim #2 a method wherein when the laser annealing treatment is performed, a cooling stage made of metal cools a first main surface on an opposite side from the main surface of the substrate while supporting the first main surface.
Roy teaches, with respect to claim #2, a method wherein when the laser annealing treatment is performed (paragraph 0002), a cooling stage made of metal cools a first main surface on an opposite side from the main surface of the substrate while supporting the first main surface (paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #2, to modified the invention of Cromwell as modified by Watson, with the modifications of the invention of Roy, which teaches, a method wherein when the laser annealing treatment is performed, a cooling stage made of metal cools a first main surface on an opposite side from the main surface of the substrate while supporting the first main surface, to incorporate a structural condition that would reduce the stress and therefore reduce the warpage to the surrounding layers, as taught by Roy.
//
Claim #3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cromwell (U.S. Pat. No, 6,624,707 B1), hereinafter referred to as "Cromwell" as modified by Watson et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0240336), hereinafter referred to as "Watson" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above, and in further view of LIAO et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0298949), hereinafter referred to as "Liao".
Cromwell as modified by Watson, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Cromwell as modified by Watson, fails to show, with respect to claim #3 a method wherein a switching operation of a laser opening and closing apparatus that switches passage and blocking of the laser light synchronizes with scanning of the laser light by a scanning section in order that the main surface of the substrate is scanned with the laser light while avoiding irradiation of the crack region with the laser light to perform the laser annealing treatment.
Liao teaches, with respect to claim #3, a method wherein a switching operation of a laser opening and closing apparatus that switches passage and blocking of the laser light synchronizes with scanning of the laser light by a scanning section in order that the main surface of the substrate is scanned with the laser light while avoiding irradiation of the crack region with the laser light to perform the laser annealing treatment (paragraph 0099).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #3, to modified the invention of Cromwell as modified by Watson, with the modifications of the invention of Liao, which teaches, a method wherein a switching operation of a laser opening and closing apparatus that switches passage and blocking of the laser light synchronizes with scanning of the laser light by a scanning section in order that the main surface of the substrate is scanned with the laser light while avoiding irradiation of the crack region with the laser light to perform the laser annealing treatment, to incorporate a structural condition that would make it is possible to clearly recognize a position, at which contrast between light and shade emerges in the scan magnetic field image, as taught by Liao.
///
Claim #4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cromwell (U.S. Pat. No, 6,624,707 B1), hereinafter referred to as "Cromwell" as modified by Watson et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0240336), hereinafter referred to as "Watson" and Roy et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0247804), hereinafter referred to as "Roy" as shown in the rejection of claim #2 above, and in further view of LIAO et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0298949), hereinafter referred to as "Liao".
Cromwell as modified by Watson and Roy, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #2 above.
Cromwell as modified by Watson and Roy, fail to show, with respect to claim #4 a method wherein a switching operation of a laser opening and closing apparatus that switches passage and blocking of the laser light synchronizes with scanning of the laser light by a scanning section in order that the main surface of the substrate is scanned with the laser light while avoiding irradiation of the crack region with the laser light to perform the laser annealing treatment.
Liao teaches, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein a switching operation of a laser opening and closing apparatus that switches passage and blocking of the laser light synchronizes with scanning of the laser light by a scanning section in order that the main surface of the substrate is scanned with the laser light while avoiding irradiation of the crack region with the laser light to perform the laser annealing treatment (paragraph 0099).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #4, to modified the invention of Cromwell as modified by Watson and Roy, with the modifications of the invention of Liao, which teaches, a method wherein a switching operation of a laser opening and closing apparatus that switches passage and blocking of the laser light synchronizes with scanning of the laser light by a scanning section in order that the main surface of the substrate is scanned with the laser light while avoiding irradiation of the crack region with the laser light to perform the laser annealing treatment, to incorporate a structural condition that would make it is possible to clearly recognize a position, at which contrast between light and shade emerges in the scan magnetic field image, as taught by Liao.
////
Claim #5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cromwell (U.S. Pat. No, 6,624,707 B1), hereinafter referred to as "Cromwell" as modified by Watson et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0240336), hereinafter referred to as "Watson" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Ding (U.S. Pub. No, 2020/0041432), hereinafter referred to as "Ding".
Cromwell as modified by Watson, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Cromwell as modified by Watson, fails to show, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein a movement amount in a pitch direction orthogonal to a scanning direction along a scanning line is increased in order that the main surface of the substrate is scanned with the laser light while avoiding an avoidance line being a scanning line including the crack to perform the laser annealing treatment.
Ding teaches, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein a movement amount in a pitch direction orthogonal to a scanning direction along a scanning line is increased in order that the main surface of the substrate is scanned with the laser light while avoiding an avoidance line being a scanning line including the crack to perform the laser annealing treatment (paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #5, to modified the invention of Cromwell as modified by Watson, with the modification of the invention of Ding, which teaches, a method wherein a movement amount in a pitch direction orthogonal to a scanning direction along a scanning line is increased in order that the main surface of the substrate is scanned with the laser light while avoiding an avoidance line being a scanning line including the crack to perform the laser annealing treatment, to incorporate a structural condition that would reduce the stress and therefore reduce the warpage to the surrounding layers, as taught by Ding.
/////
Claim #6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cromwell (U.S. Pat. No, 6,624,707 B1), hereinafter referred to as "Cromwell" as modified by Watson et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0240336), hereinafter referred to as "Watson" and Roy et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0247804), hereinafter referred to as "Roy" as shown in the rejection of claim #2 above and in view of Ding (U.S. Pub. No, 2020/0041432), hereinafter referred to as "Ding".
Cromwell as modified by Watson and Roy, substantially shows the claimed in invention as shown in the rejection of claim #2 above.
Cromwell as modified by Watson and Roy, fails to show, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein a movement amount in a pitch direction orthogonal to a scanning direction along a scanning line is increased in order that the main surface of the substrate is scanned with the laser light while avoiding an avoidance line being a scanning line including the crack to perform the laser annealing treatment.
Ding teaches, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein a movement amount in a pitch direction orthogonal to a scanning direction along a scanning line is increased in order that the main surface of the substrate is scanned with the laser light while avoiding an avoidance line being a scanning line including the crack to perform the laser annealing treatment (paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #6, to modified the invention of Cromwell as modified by Watson and Roy, with the modification of the invention of Ding, which teaches, a method wherein a movement amount in a pitch direction orthogonal to a scanning direction along a scanning line is increased in order that the main surface of the substrate is scanned with the laser light while avoiding an avoidance line being a scanning line including the crack to perform the laser annealing treatment, to incorporate a structural condition that would reduce the stress and therefore reduce the warpage to the surrounding layers, as taught by Ding.
/////
Claim #7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cromwell (U.S. Pat. No, 6,624,707 B1), hereinafter referred to as "Cromwell" and Watson et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0240336), hereinafter referred to as "Watson" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above, and in further view of Knerer et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0026232), hereinafter referred to as "Knerer".
Cromwell as modified by Watson, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Cromwell as modified by Watson, fails to show, with respect to claim #7 a method further comprising grinding and thinning the substrate before performing the laser annealing treatment.
Knerer teaches, with respect to claim #7, a method further comprising grinding (paragraph 0028) and thinning the substrate before performing the laser annealing treatment (paragraph 0034-0035).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #7, to modified the invention of Cromwell as modified by Watson, with the modifications of the invention of Knerer, which teaches, a method further comprising grinding and thinning the substrate before performing the laser annealing treatment, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide recrystallize polycrystalline silicon regions by local melting of said regions, as taught by Knerer.
///
Claim #8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cromwell (U.S. Pat. No, 6,624,707 B1), hereinafter referred to as "Cromwell" as modified by Watson et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0240336), hereinafter referred to as "Watson" and Roy et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0247804), hereinafter referred to as "Roy", as shown in the rejection of claim #2 above, and in further view of Knerer et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0026232), hereinafter referred to as "Knerer".
Cromwell as modified by Watson and Roy, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #2 above.
Cromwell as modified by Watson and Roy, fail to show, with respect to claim #8 a method further comprising grinding and thinning the substrate before performing the laser annealing treatment.
Knerer teaches, with respect to claim #8, a method further comprising grinding (paragraph 0028) and thinning the substrate before performing the laser annealing treatment (paragraph 0034-0035).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #8, to modified the invention of Cromwell as modified by Watson and Roy, with the modifications of the invention of Knerer, which teaches, a method further comprising grinding and thinning the substrate before performing the laser annealing treatment, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide recrystallize polycrystalline silicon regions by local melting of said regions, as taught by Knerer.
///
Claim #9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawryluk et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0148810), hereinafter referred to as "Hawryluk" and in view of Watson et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0240336), hereinafter referred to as "Watson".
Hawryluk shows, with respect to claim #9, apparatus comprising a stage (fig.6, item 110) (paragraph 0086) configured to hold the substrate (paragraph 0024, 0086); an optical unit configured to irradiate the substrate held by the stage with laser light for annealing (paragraph 0012); a scanning section configured to scan the substrate with the laser light (paragraph 0098-0096); and a control unit (fig. #6, item 170) (paragraph 0088) configured to control the optical unit (fig. #6, item 10) (paragraph 0057) and the scanning section to perform laser annealing treatment on the substrate, the laser annealing treatment comprising scanning (paragraph 0005-007, 0084-0085) the main surface of the substrate with the laser light (paragraph 0089-0090) in order that a time integral of a light amount of the laser light with which a unit area in a crack region including the crack detected by the inspection unit (paragraph 0012, 0096) is irradiated is smaller than a time integral of a light amount of the laser light with which a unit area in a region different from the crack region is irradiated, to perform laser annealing treatment on the substrate (paragraph 0012, 0096).
Hawryluk substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #9 above.
Hawryluk fails to explicitly state, with respect to claim #9, a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising performing laser annealing treatment on the substrate after detecting the crack.
Watson teaches, with respect to claim #9, a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising performing laser annealing treatment (fig. #1, item 106) (paragraph 0021, 0029) on the substrate after detecting the crack (fig. #1, item 106) (paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #9, to modified the invention of Hawryluk, with the modifications of the invention of Watson, which teaches, a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising performing laser annealing treatment on the substrate after detecting the crack, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a corrected reticle that can be used along with various lithography tools to pattern another wafer in operation, as taught by Watson.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683 (Email Address, Andre.Stevenson@USPTO.GOV). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2899
08/22/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights