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 .
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 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.
Status of the application
This office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filled on 11/19/2025. Claims 1-11 are pending for this examination.
Oath/Declaration
The oath or declaration filed on 07/13/2023 is acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, with traverse, of Species I: claims 1-11, in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed” filed on 04/25/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, Species I- to species III are not directed to patentably distinct species and fails to demonstrate a serious search burden.
The species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources or non-patent language, or deploying different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Furthermore, the species require separate classification searches (i.e. B81C2201/0143 or B23K26/00-70 or H10P14/6509 or H10P14/6536-6539 or H10P14/3818 or H10P14/382 or H10W20/095 or H10W42/20-287) such as there are mutually exclusive features, as indicated in office action 09/19/2025 and these mutually exclusive features are categorized in the separate classes.
Additionally, the species require different text searches. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. This office action considers claims 1-11 are thus pending for prosecution.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding Claim 1, The instant claims recite limitation “pulsed laser radiation by way of creating a beam convergence zone in the volume of the workpiece, in which the intensity of the laser radiation exceeds a threshold value for non-linear absorption”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, the intensity of the laser radiation exceeds a threshold value for non-linear absorption is unclear because the intensity is not defined. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate corrections defining these limitations within metes and bounds of the claimed invention are required.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because of their dependency status from claim 1.
Claim Rejection- 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 of this title, 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, 4-5, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VANAGAS et al (US 2017/0250113 A1; hereafter VANAGAS) in view of Ellison et al (US 2019/0233321 A1; hereafter Ellison).
Regarding claim 1. VANAGAS discloses a method for dividing a transparent workpiece (Fig. [3-5], Para [ 0027-0036], workpiece 6) by means of pulsed laser radiation by way of creating a beam convergence zone in the volume of the workpiece (Para [ 0027] discloses “a workpiece with a focused pulsed laser beam through a beam focusing unit in such a way that beam convergence zone”), wherein the beam convergence zone and the workpiece ( workpiece 6, Para [ 0029]) are moved relative to each other ( Fig [3-4], Para [ 0027-0029]), thereby creating a two-dimensional weakening in the workpiece extending along a predetermined separating line (Fig [5], Para [ 0030] discloses “each laser pulse delivered on the surface be in the range from 1 μm to 10 μm and can be adjusted by changing the motorized translation stage assembly (7) movement velocity. The cleaving/breaking (11) plane is formed by linear movement of motorized translation stage assembly 7”), and
wherein the workpiece (Fig. [3-5], Para [ 0027-0036], workpiece 6) is subsequently divided along the separating line (Fig [5], Para [ 0029-0030]), wherein non-linear propagation of the laser radiation ( para [ 0007]) in the volume of the workpiece outside the beam convergence zone is suppressed by selecting the duration of the energy input generated by the non-linear absorption of the pulsed laser radiation in the beam convergence zone and/or by spatial beam shaping ( Para [ 0007] and also Para [ 0029] discloses “a laser (2) capable of stably producing successive laser pulses of a constant polarization and having a well defined temporal envelope, preferably Gaussian, having a pulse duration set in the range of 100 to 15 000 fs, a central wavelength set in the range of 500 to 2000 nm, a frequency set in the range of 10 kHz to 2 MHz and a pulse energy sufficient to allow pulses behind the focusing unit (3,4,5) with a pulse energy in the range of 1 to 100 μJ and fluence in the range of 0.1 to 100 J/cm.sup.2”).
VANAGAS further disclose “focused pulsed laser beam at a wavelength for which the wafer is transparent, but which is absorbed by nonlinear processes at the focus”, Para [ 0007].
But VANAGAS does not disclose explicitly in which the intensity of the laser radiation exceeds a threshold value for non-linear absorption.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ellison discloses in which the intensity of the laser radiation exceeds a threshold value for non-linear absorption (Para [ 0032] discloses “non-linear optical absorption occurs in transparent materials when the intensity of the laser exceeds a threshold”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine VANAGAS in light of Ellison teaching “in which the intensity of the laser radiation exceeds a threshold value for non-linear absorption (Para [ 0032] discloses “non-linear optical absorption occurs in transparent materials when the intensity of the laser exceeds a threshold”)” for further advantage such as using laser pulse to fully automated separation of the part from the substrate.
Regarding claim 4. VANAGAS and Ellison discloses Method according to claim 1, VANAGAS further discloses wherein the pulse duration of the pulsed laser radiation is greater than a critical value, wherein the critical value is the quotient of pulse energy (Para [ 0029]) and material-specific critical power above which non-linear propagation, in particular self-focusing, occurs in the volume of the workpiece (Para [ 0029]).
Regarding claim 5. VANAGAS and Ellison discloses method according to claim 1, VANAGAS further discloses wherein the pulse duration and the pulse energy of the pulsed laser radiation are selected according to the proviso that a modification is effected by the non-linear absorption ( Para [ 0007, 0027-0029]) of the laser radiation in the volume of the workpiece within the beam convergence zone ( Para [ 0007, 0027-0029]), by a single laser pulse or a laser pulse burst consisting of a sequence of a predetermined number of laser pulses ( Para [ 0029-0030]).
Regarding claim 7. VANAGAS and Ellison discloses method according to claim 1, VANAGAS further discloses wherein the beam convergence zone has an elongated shape along the beam axis oriented substantially perpendicular to the workpiece surface, wherein the length of the beam convergence zone in the beam direction is greater by at least a factor of 10, preferably by at least a factor of 50, particularly preferably by at least a factor of 100, than the extent of the beam convergence zone perpendicular thereto (Para [ 0029] discloses “ pulsed laser beam (1) source (2), preferably of a spherical-elliptical Gaussian intensity distribution, beam focusing unit (3,4,5), such as an arrangement of an beam shaping optics”, which is same as instant application. Therefore, Gaussian intensity can have beam convergence zone in the beam direction is greater by at least a factor of 10, preferably by at least a factor of 50, particularly preferably by at least a factor of 100).
Regarding claim 11. VANAGAS in light of Ellison discloses Method according to claim 1, VANAGAS further discloses wherein the workpiece is a semiconductor wafer which is divided into chips along one or more separating lines (Para [ 0002-0003, 0039]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VANAGAS et al (US 2017/0250113 A1; hereafter VANAGAS) in view of Ellison et al (US 2019/0233321 A1; hereafter Ellison) as applied claims above and further in view of Berger et al (US 2020/0206841 A1; hereafter Berger).
Regarding claim 2. VANAGAS and Ellison discloses Method according to claim 1, But VANAGAS and Ellison does not disclose explicitly wherein the wavelength of the laser radiation is selected according to the proviso that the linear absorption of the laser radiation at this wavelength is less than 20% per centimeter, preferably less than 10%, particularly preferably less than 5% per centimeter.
In a similar field of endeavor, Berger discloses wherein the wavelength of the laser radiation is selected according to the proviso that the linear absorption of the laser radiation at this wavelength is less than 20% per centimeter, preferably less than 10%, particularly preferably less than 5% per centimeter (Para [ 0029] discloses “a value at which the linear absorption is less than 10% per centimeter, in the direction of the laser beam 2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine VANAGAS and Ellison in light of Berger teaching wherein the wavelength of the laser radiation is selected according to the proviso that the linear absorption of the laser radiation at this wavelength is less than 20% per centimeter, preferably less than 10%, particularly preferably less than 5% per centimeter (Para [ 0029] discloses “a value at which the linear absorption is less than 10% per centimeter, in the direction of the laser beam 2”)” for further advantage such as to provide transparent workpiece by generating non-linear absorption of laser radiation.
Regarding claim 3. VANAGAS and Ellison in light of Berger discloses the Method according to claim 2, VANAGAS further discloses wherein the wavelength of the laser radiation is selected according to the proviso that the non-linear refractive index in the volume of the workpiece at this wavelength is as low as possible (Para [ 0041]), in particular so low that non-linear propagation does not prevent an energy input sufficient to create the weakening into the beam convergence zone (Para [ 0041]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VANAGAS et al (US 2017/0250113 A1; hereafter VANAGAS) in view of Ellison et al (US 2019/0233321 A1; hereafter Ellison) as applied claims above and further in view of KLEINERT et al (US 2022/0168847 A1; hereafter KLEINERT).
Regarding claim 10. VANAGAS in light of Ellison discloses Method according to claim 1, But VANAGAS in light of Ellison does not disclose explicitly wherein the material of the workpiece is silicon, wherein the pulse duration of the pulsed laser radiation is in the range of 20- 500 ps and wherein the wavelength of the laser radiation is in the range of 1300-2500 nm.
In a similar field of endeavor, KLEINERT discloses wherein the material of the workpiece is silicon (Para [ 0028]), wherein the pulse duration of the pulsed laser radiation is in the range of 20- 500 ps (Para [ 0041]) and wherein the wavelength of the laser radiation is in the range of 1300-2500 nm (Para [ 0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine VANAGAS and Ellison in light of Berger teaching “wherein the material of the workpiece is silicon ( Para [ 0028]), wherein the pulse duration of the pulsed laser radiation is in the range of 20- 500 ps ( Para [ 0041]) and wherein the wavelength of the laser radiation is in the range of 1300-2500 nm (Para [ 0040])” for further advantage such as to modulating the optical power within laser pulses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOIN M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5002. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/MOIN M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898