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 .
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.
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 image forming unit” in claim 2, which is being interpreted as, “an imagine forming system 27, a magnifying image forming lens 28, and a telecentric lens 29” as indicated in [0029].
“an image forming system” as indicated as a component of “an image forming unit” and in being interpreted as, “a image lens formed of a single lens or a coupling lens” or “a biconvex lens and a biconcave lens sequentially disposed” or “a spatial light modulator” that has the functions of the image forming lens as indicated in [0030].
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. (emphasis added)
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 § 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai (JP 2003-080389A) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2021-115613A).
PNG
media_image1.png
218
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Sawai discloses a laser beam irradiation apparatus (Fig. 1, abstract “a laser beam machining”) comprising:
a holding table (“semiconductor substrate 101 place on the moving table” [0002]) that holds a plate-shaped workpiece (101);
a laser beam irradiation unit (“laser oscillator (not shown)” [0013]) that irradiates the plate-shaped workpiece (Fig. 5) held by the holding table with a laser beam (14);
However, Sawai does not disclose, “a controller that controls the laser beam irradiation unit,
wherein the laser beam irradiation unit includes
a laser beam source that emits the laser beam, and
a spatial light modulator that modulates the laser beam emitted from the laser beam source, according to a phase pattern, and emits the modulated laser beam,
the controller has
a storing section that stores the phase pattern to be displayed in the spatial light modulator, and
a rotation instructing section that rotates the phase pattern stored in the storing section, and
wherein the controller uniformizes a power density of the laser beam with which the plate-shaped workpiece is irradiated, by rotating the phase pattern while the plate-shaped workpiece is irradiated with the laser beam.”
Tanaka et al. teaches, in the field of laser processing, a laser processing apparatus (1) that irradiates a workpiece (100) with a laser beam (21) emitted from a laser oscillator (20), a control unit (90), a plurality of mask patterns (200) of the laser beam are prepared (91, 92 “pattern creation unit” and “pattern storage unit”, and the spatial light modulator adjusts the output of the laser beam by sequentially changing the plurality of mask patterns while irradiating the workpiece with the laser beam, resulting in the time required for output adjustment by rotating the optical component itself to be reduced ([0013]-[0018], [0027]-[0031], [0045]-[0054], Fig. 1 – Fig. 3, Fig. 10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the laser irradiation unit of Sawai to have a controller with a spatial light modulator as taught by Tanaka et al., as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, “On the other hand, in the present invention, since the output of the laser beam 21 can be controlled by using the spatial light modulator 24, the time required for driving the conventional motor can be reduced, and the time required for output adjustment can be shortened. be able to. As a result, the time required for processing the workpiece 100 can be suppressed, so that a decrease in productivity due to output adjustment can be suppressed. [0054]”
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sawai and Tanaka et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the laser beam irradiation unit further includes an image forming unit (Tanaka et al., 24 “spatial light modulator”) that executes the image formation of the laser beam modulated by the spatial light modulator, to execute irradiation of the plate shaped workpiece (Tanaka et al., 404 “irradiation step”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai (JP 2003-080389A) and Tanaka et al. (JP 2021-115613A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (JP 2021-102217A).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sawai and Tanaka et al. teach all of claim 2 as above.
However, the combination of Sawai and Tanaka et al. do not teach or suggest,
“wherein the plate-shaped workpiece includes a substrate over which a plurality of semiconductor chips having bumps on one surface are mounted with interposition of the bumps, and
reflow of the bumps included in an irradiated range of the laser beam is cause by irradiating a region corresponding to the semiconductor chips mounted over the substrate with the laser beam.”
PNG
media_image2.png
338
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kobayashi et al. teaches in the field of semiconductor chip processing with a laser light source (51), a substrate (20) over which a plurality of semiconductor chips (30) having bumps (32) on one surface are mounted with interposition of the bumps ([0023]-[0024]), and reflow of the bumps included range of the laser beam is caused by irradiating a region corresponding to the semiconductor chips mounted over the substrate with the laser beam [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the laser processing apparatus of the combination of Sawai and Tanaka et al. (which includes a spatial light modulator or LCOS) to reflow bumps in the semiconductor substrate, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, “As a process superior to the above process, for example, a laser reflow process as disclosed in Patent Document 1 is known. In this laser reflow process, a laser beam is irradiated from above the chip to melt the bumps within a predetermined range of the mounting surface of the substrate, and the chip is connected to the electrodes on the substrate.
In such a laser reflow process, by irradiating a plurality of chips with a laser beam, higher productivity can be obtained than in the TCB process, and there is an advantage that a large warp does not occur on the substrate as in the mass reflow process. is there. (Background-Art [0005]-[0006])”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image3.png
292
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
WO 2022138581 A1 discloses a laser processing apparatus and laser processing method.
PNG
media_image4.png
396
558
media_image4.png
Greyscale
CN 112518110 A discloses a laser processing method and laser processing device.
PNG
media_image5.png
432
390
media_image5.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2016/0193692 A1 discloses devices and method for monitoring, in particular for regulating a cutting process; including an LCOS [0020].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745