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 31 July 2026 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richard Murison et al. (US 2008/0080570 A1; hereinafter “Murison”) in view of Choi Sang Chul et al. (KR 2018-0104914 A; hereinafter “Chul”).
Regarding Claim 1, Murison teaches a laser annealing method comprising:
selecting a reference intensity from a plurality of intensities of a plurality of peaks (64, Fig. 5B, para [0048] describes tailoring a laser power to have a mid-pulse spike 64 wherein the rest of the laser profile is in reference to the mid-pulse spike 64); where the reference intensity is used to determine a pulse shape of laser irradiation during laser annealing (para [0048] describes wherein the laser pulse power profile is tailored with respect to the pulse spike 64);
setting the pulse shape by setting an intensity ratio of a first peak having a smallest peak occurrence time among the plurality of peaks to less than about 100 percent relative to the reference intensity (Pmin, Fig. 5B, depicts a laser pulse profile having a first peak that levels off at minimum peak value Pmin); and
irradiating a laser beam having the pulse shape (Fig. 5B, para [0048] describes wherein a tailored pulse power laser profile as depicted in Fig. 5B may be used to remove a material on a silicon substrate).
Murison fails to explicitly teach irradiating a laser beam having the pulse shape to a stage.
However, Chul teaches a similar laser annealing method comprising:
irradiating a laser beam having the pulse shape to a stage (172, Fig. 1, para [0045] describes wherein a wafer 171 is mounted on a stage 172 to which a laser is irradiated by a beam splitter 150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Murison with Chul to further disclose a laser annealing method comprising a stage on to which a wafer is mounted in order to provide the well-known advantage of providing a surface upon which a wafer may be disposed for a laser annealing process which provides stability to the wafer during the laser annealing process increasing precision during laser annealing and protecting an area on an opposite side of a wafer.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Murison and Chul discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Murison fails to explicitly disclose wherein the pulse shape further includes a second peak, a third peak, a fourth peak, a fifth peak, a sixth peak, and a seventh peak, each of the second peak, the third peak, the fourth peak, and the fifth peak, a sixth peak, and the seventh peak occur sequentially after occurrence of the first peak, and the intensity ratio of each of the first peak, the second peak, the third peak, the fourth peak, the sixth peak, and the seventh peak is set using a height value of the fifth peak as the reference intensity.
However, Chul teaches a similar laser annealing method wherein the pulse shape further includes a second peak, a third peak, a fourth peak, a fifth peak, a sixth peak, and a seventh peak (annotated Fig. 2A from Chul, para [0054] describes wherein the pulse width between a first through fourth pulses P1, P2, P3 and P4 may be adjusted to a desired magnitude wherein upon eliminating a gap in time between the first through fourth pulses P1, P2, P3, P4 a variable laser pulse would result in a first peak 1P, a second peak 2P, a third peak 3P, a fourth peak 4P, a fifth peak 5P, a sixth peak 6P, and a seventh peak 7P),
each of the second peak, the third peak, the fourth peak, and the fifth peak, a sixth peak, and the seventh peak occur sequentially after occurrence of the first peak (annotated Fig. 2A depicts wherein the second peak 2P, the third peak 3P, the fourth peak 4P, and the fifth peak 5P, a sixth peak 6P, and the seventh peak 7P occur sequentially after occurrence of the first peak 1P as the time increases on the x axis), and
the intensity ratio of each of the first peak, the second peak, the third peak, the fourth peak, the sixth peak, and the seventh peak is set using a height value of the fifth peak as the reference intensity (upon combining Murison with Chul and adjusting the overlap of the peaks of Chul, a fifth peak may have a largest intensity wherein para [0048] of Murison discloses wherein the peak of the largest intensity may be used to tailor the shape of the laser pulse resulting in a height value of the fifth peak being set as a reference intensity for the remaining peaks 1P, 2P, 3P, 4P, 6P and 7P)
PNG
media_image1.png
234
441
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Murison with Chul to further disclose a laser annealing method comprising a laser pulse shape further includes a first peak, a second peak, a third peak, a fourth peak, a fifth peak, a sixth peak and a seventh peak in order to provide the advantage of providing a variable laser beam which may have a desired intensity of pulses and pulse shape with an output optimized for a laser annealing process thereby improving a processing quality of a wafer (Chul, para [0075]).
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richard Murison et al. (US 2008/0080570 A1; hereinafter “Murison”) in view of Choi Sang Chul et al. (KR 2018-0104914 A; hereinafter “Chul”) in further view of Junichi Shida et al. (US 2013/0210242 A1; hereinafter “Shida”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Murison and Chul discloses call the limitations of claim 9.
The combination of Murison and Chul fails to explicitly disclose the laser annealing method of claim 9, wherein the intensity ratio of the first peak relative to the fifth peak is about 18 percent to about 26 percent.
However, Shida discloses a similar laser annealing method, wherein the intensity ratio of the first peak relative to the fifth peak is about 18 percent to about 26 percent (annotated Fig. 3 depicting the graph in the bottom row, middle column of Fig. 3 depicts a laser annealing treatment with a delayed pulse rising time resulting in a first peak FP with an intensity of approximately 0.25 in comparison to an intensity of a fifth peak FTP comprising a maximum intensity value of 1.0 wherein a resulting ratio would be about 0.25:1.0 resulting in a ratio of approximately 25% which falls within the range of 17 percent to 26 percent).
PNG
media_image2.png
237
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Murison and Chul with Shida to further disclose a laser annealing method comprising a laser pulse shape wherein an intensity ratio of a first peak relative to a fifth peak is about 18 percent to about 26 percent in order to provide the advantage of providing for a laser annealing method with a properly defined rising time and falling time with a highest peak in the middle of the laser pulse and a first peak within the rising time so that an irradiated area of a semiconductor film can be increased as much as possible while preventing negative effects (Shida, para [0019]).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Murison, Chul and Shida teaches the laser annealing method of claim 10, wherein the intensity ratio of the third peak relative to the fifth peak is about 30 percent to about 40 percent (annotated Fig. 3 depicting the graph in the bottom row, middle column of Fig. 3 depicts a laser annealing treatment with a delayed pulse rising time resulting in a third peak TP with an intensity of approximately 0.39 in comparison to an intensity of a fifth peak FTP comprising a maximum intensity value of 1.0 wherein a resulting ratio would be about 0.39:1.0 resulting in a ratio of approximately 39% which falls within the range of 30 percent to 40 percent), and
the intensity ratio of the seventh peak relative to the fifth peak is about 60 percent to about 75 percent (annotated Fig. 3 depicting the graph in the bottom row, middle column of Fig. 3 depicts a laser annealing treatment with a delayed pulse rising time resulting in a seventh peak SVP with an intensity of approximately 0.62 in comparison to an intensity of a fifth peak FTP comprising a maximum intensity value of 1.0 wherein a resulting ratio would be about 0.62:1.0 resulting in a ratio of approximately 62% which falls within the range of 60 percent to 75 percent).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Murison, Chul and Shida teaches the laser annealing method of claim 10, wherein the intensity ratio of the third peak relative to the fifth peak is about 31 percent to about 39 percent (annotated Fig. 3 depicting the graph in the bottom row, middle column of Fig. 3 depicts a laser annealing treatment with a delayed pulse rising time resulting in a third peak TP with an intensity of approximately 0.39 in comparison to an intensity of a fifth peak FTP comprising a maximum intensity value of 1.0 wherein a resulting ratio would be about 0.39:1.0 resulting in a ratio of approximately 39% which falls within the range of 31 percent to 39 percent), and
the intensity ratio of the seventh peak relative to the fifth peak is about 61 percent to about 70 percent (annotated Fig. 3 depicting the graph in the bottom row, middle column of Fig. 3 depicts a laser annealing treatment with a delayed pulse rising time resulting in a seventh peak SVP with an intensity of approximately 0.62 in comparison to an intensity of a fifth peak FTP comprising a maximum intensity value of 1.0 wherein a resulting ratio would be about 0.62:1.0 resulting in a ratio of approximately 62% which falls within the range of 61 percent to 70 percent).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richard Murison et al. (US 2008/0080570 A1; hereinafter “Murison”) in view of Choi Sang Chul et al. (KR 2018-0104914 A; hereinafter “Chul”) and in further view of James S. Im et al. (US 2013/0105807 A1; hereinafter “Im”).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Murison and Chul discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Murison and Chul discloses wherein the irradiation of the laser beam to the stage includes,
setting the laser beam having a first energy density (Murison, para [0051] describes wherein an energy of the laser pulse according to Fig. 5B is set preferably between about 0.001 microjoule and about 10 microjoule);
The combination of Murison and Chul fails to explicitly disclose wherein the irradiation of the laser beam to the stage includes, first scanning the stage using the laser beam irradiation in a shape of a line beam extending a first direction, along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; setting the laser beam having a second energy density larger than the first energy density; and second scanning the stage using the laser beam having the second energy density, along an opposite direction to the second direction.
However, Im discloses a similar laser annealing process, wherein the irradiation of the laser beam to the stage (180, Fig. 3A, para [0007] describes wherein the process involved is used to irradiate and crystallize areas of a film on a state 180 as described in para [0064]) includes,
first scanning the stage using the laser beam irradiation in a shape of a line beam extending a first direction, along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (1120, Fig. 7, para [0086] describes a first scan 1120 using laser beam irradiation in a shape of a line beam extending towards regions 1110, 1112, 1114, 1116 and 1118 in a first direction wherein the beam is emitted along a second direction along the y axis perpendicular to the first direction);
setting the laser beam having a second energy density larger than the first energy density (para [0087] describes wherein a first pulse of a first scan may have a lower laser fluence, resulting in a lower energy density, than subsequent scans, such as a second scan); and
second scanning the stage using the laser beam having the second energy density, along an opposite direction to the second direction (1130, Fig. 7, para [0086] describes wherein a second scan 1130 occurs in an opposite direction as a first scan with respect to the second direction along the y axis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Murison and Chul with Im to further disclose a laser annealing method comprising a first scan and a second scan of the a laser beam irradiation process wherein the two scans occur in a direction opposite to one another and an energy density is changed between each scan in order to provide the advantage of providing a multiple scan irradiation process providing a higher quality crystallographic film (Im, para [0086]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 9, lines 8-26, page 10, lines 1-22 and page 11, lines 1-13 of the Applicant’s remarks that the prior art of record, Murison, fails to teach “selecting a reference intensity from a plurality of intensities of a plurality of peaks” and that Murison further makes no mention of how the reference intensity is to be used to determine a pulse shape of laser irradiation during laser annealing and Murison does not provide any information about the first shaped electrical signal. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of record, Murison, teaches in para [0031] that a wavelength output has a center wavelength and spectral width closely matched to the output of the seed source wherein such an output from the seed source may be a reference intensity selected from a plurality of possible intensities generated from a seed source to generate a seed signal as described in para [0020]. Murison teaches in para [0024] using an optical amplitude modulator to then control a pulse shape and pulse width by a modulator drive signal applied to the optical amplitude modulator, thereby generating a laser pulse with predetermined pulse characteristics, including pulse width, pulse shape and pulse repetition rate. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a max pulse intensity as a seed source from a continuous wave semiconductor laser used to shape the pulse shape as shown in at least Fig. 5B, doing so would provide the advantage of preventing the optical amplitude modulator from producing a peak intensity which may damage a silicon substrate during a laser annealing process (Murison, para [0048]). Murison teaches in para [0048] that a laser optical temporal power profile, such as shown in Fig. 5B is specifically tailored wherein the tailoring would result from selecting a reference intensity, such as the seed source, from a plurality of peak intensities generated by a continuous wave semiconductor laser and such a reference intensity is then specifically tailored by the optical amplitude modulator to generate a pulse shape as shown in at least Fig. 5B with a plurality of peaks with a maximum power as shown by graph label, Pmax, that may be generated by the seed source output. Additionally, Murison teaches in para [0051] that the spike peak is a predetermined value wherein such a predetermined value may be set from the seed source and selected as a reference intensity used for specifically tailoring the laser pulses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 and Claim 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Claim 12 is indicated as being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims due to it requiring a pulse duration between the first peak and the third peak is about 38 nanoseconds to about 46 nanoseconds, a pulse duration between the first peak and the fifth peak is about 83 nanoseconds to about 91 nanoseconds, and a pulse duration between the first peak and the seventh peak is about 129 nanoseconds to about 137 nanoseconds. Specifically, the prior art of record in combination fails to teach or suggest a plurality of peaks with a specific ratio of intensities as required by claim 11 from which claim 12 is dependent upon, in combination with a specific pulse duration between each of the peaks. The prior art of record teaches wherein a pulse duration may be changed to achieve desired results but fails to present motivation for changing the pulse duration to the specific length as required by claim 14.
Claim 14 is indicated as being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims due to it requiring a pulse duration between the first peak and the third peak is about 52 nanoseconds to about 64 nanoseconds, a pulse duration between the first peak and the fifth peak is about 98 nanoseconds to about 110 nanoseconds, and a pulse duration between the first peak and the seventh peak is about 133 nanoseconds to about 143 nanoseconds. Specifically, the prior art of record in combination fails to teach or suggest a plurality of peaks with a specific ratio of intensities as required by claim 11 from which claim 12 is dependent upon, in combination with a specific pulse duration between each of the peaks. The prior art of record teaches wherein a pulse duration may be changed to achieve desired results but fails to present motivation for changing the pulse duration to the specific length as required by claim 14.
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 ALEXANDER M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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.
/ALEXANDER MICHAEL MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights