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 01/15/2025, 10/16/2025, 12/11/2025, 02/17/2026 The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the claim dated 05/22/2023, claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 8, “based on the based on the” should be “based on the”
Claim 17, line 5, “apparatus” should be “the laser-processing apparatus”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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: Claim 9 recites the limitation: “a beam modulator operative to modulate the laser energy” uses a generic placeholder “modulator” that is coupled with functional language “to modulate the laser energy” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “beam modulator” , Applicant’s Specification, para.0037 discloses: “the beam modulator 106 can include one or more systems such as a variable neutral density filter, an acousto-optical (AO) modulator (AOM), an AO deflector (AOD), a liquid crystal variable attenuator (LCVA), a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS)-based VOA, an optical attenuator wheel, a polarizer/waveplate filter, or the like or any combination thereof.”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Iso (JPH11277261A, cited in 12/11/2025 IDS)
Regarding claim 1, Iso discloses
A laser-processing apparatus ( laser beam drilling device, see title) for carrying out a process (hole drilling, see para.0040) to form a via (hole, see fig.5) in a workpiece (RCC substrate, see figs.1, 4,5, wherein the RCC substrate in fig.4 in place of the workpiece 23 in fig.1,See para.0040: “ as shown in FIG. 4, when performing conformal processing (hole drilling) on an RCC (Resin coated Copper) substrate in which copper foil portions 42 (with and without patterns) are formed on both upper and lower surfaces of an insulating resin 41”), having a first material (upper copper foil 42, see fig.4, wherein the copper foil 42 is formed on upper surface of the insulating resin 41) formed on a second material (41, see fig.4), by directing laser energy (laser beam, see fig.1) onto the workpiece (RCC substrate, see figs.1, 4, 5 and para.para.0040) such that the laser energy (laser beam, see fig.1) is incident upon the first material (42, see fig.5),
PNG
media_image1.png
565
293
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the laser energy has a wavelength (wavelength of the laser light, see fig.1, which is an inherent property of the laser) to which the first material (copper foil 42, see figs.5a-b) is more reflective than the second material (insulating resin 41, see fig.5c, no reflected light is generated from the insulting resin 41.See figs.5a-5c and para.0040, “when the copper foil 42 is present, the return light detection sensor 18 detects the return light”, and when the insulating resin 41 is exposed in the hole, the detection cannot be performed. See more evidences in para.0034: “while the insulating resin 25 is being irradiated with the laser beam, almost no reflected light is generated from the workpiece 23. However, when the copper land 26 is exposed in the via hole, the laser light is reflected by the copper land 26 (the reflectance of the copper laser light is 99% or more”, with the same laser beam as shown in fig.1, the copper material of fig.1 , which is similar to the copper foil 42 of fig.5, is more reflective than the insulating resin), the apparatus comprising:
a back-reflection sensing system (return light detection sensor 18,see fig.1) operative to capture a back-reflection signal (return light, see para.0040) corresponding to a portion of laser energy (the incidence of the laser light, see para.0037, 0040 and fig.4-5) directed to the workpiece (RCC substrate, see figs.4-5) and reflected by the first material (42,see fig.5 and para.0040: “when the copper foil 42 is present, the return light detection sensor 18 detects the return light”) and generate a sensor signal (the detection signal from the return light detection sensor 18, see para.0038) based on the captured back-reflection signal (return light, see para.0040, captured by the sensor 18); and
a controller (19, see fig.1) communicatively coupled to an output of the back-reflection sensing system (output of the sensor 18,see fig.1 and para.0038: “The control device 19 monitors the detection signal from the return light detection sensor 18”) , wherein the controller (19, see fig.1) is operative to control a remainder of the process (remainder of the hole drilling process, see para.0040 and figs.5a-d) by which the via (hole, see para.0040) is formed based on the sensor signal (See fig.5 and para.0040: “when the copper foil 42 is present, the return light detection sensor 18 detects the return light, but when a hole is formed in the copper foil portion 42 and the insulating resin 41 is exposed in the hole, the return light is detected. Since the detection cannot be performed, it can be detected that the boring process for the copper foil portion is completed”).
Regarding claim 2, Iso further discloses the laser energy (laser beam, see fig. 1) directed to the workpiece (RCC substrate, see figs.4-5) is manifested as at least one laser pulse (laser pulse from 11, see fig.1 and see para.0018: “laser oscillator 11 is a pulse oscillation type laser oscillator”) and wherein the controller (19, see fig.1) is operative to control the process (hole drilling), at least in part, by controlling a pulse energy of the least one laser pulse (see para.0030: “the laser oscillator 11 is controlled to pulse-oscillate and emit laser light”).
Regarding claim 4, Iso further discloses the laser energy (laser beam, see fig. 1) directed to the workpiece (RCC substrate, see figs.1, 4,5) is manifested as at least one laser pulse (see para.0018: “ a pulse oscillation type laser oscillator that generates an ultraviolet laser beam can also be used”), and wherein the controller (19) is operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling the number of laser pulses to be directed to the workpiece (See para.0038: “The control device 19 monitors the detection signal from the return light detection sensor 18, and if the detection signal is not obtained from the return light detection sensor 18 even though the predetermined number of shots of laser light is irradiated”).
Regarding claim 7, Iso further discloses the laser energy directed to the workpiece is manifested as a laser pulse (see para.0018: “ a pulse oscillation type laser oscillator that generates an ultraviolet laser beam can also be used”), and wherein the controller (19) is operative to control the process by which the via (hole) is formed while the laser pulse is directed to the workpiece (see fig.5a-c and para.0038).
Regarding claim 8, Iso further discloses a laser source (11, see fig.1) operative to generate the laser energy (laser beam, see fig.1).
Regarding claim 10, Iso discloses A method (laser method, see abstract “a laser drilling apparatus capable of automatically detecting completion of drilling by detecting that a lower layer copper pattern is exposed in a hole”) comprising:
carrying out a process (hole drilling) to form a via (hole, see fig.5) in a workpiece (RCC substrate, see figs.1, 4,5, wherein the RCC substrate in fig.4 in place of the workpiece 23 in fig.1,See para.0040: “as shown in FIG. 4, when performing conformal processing (hole drilling) on an RCC (Resin coated Copper) substrate in which copper foil portions 42 (with and without patterns) are formed on both upper and lower surfaces of an insulating resin 41”), having a first material (upper copper foil 42, see fig.4, wherein the copper foil 42 is formed on upper surface of the insulating resin 41) formed on a second material (41, see fig.4), by directing laser energy (laser beam, see fig.1) onto the workpiece (RCC substrate, see figs.1, 4 and para.para.0040) such that the laser energy (laser beam, see fig.1) is incident upon the first material (42, see fig.5),
wherein the laser energy has a wavelength (wavelength of the laser light, see fig.1, which is an inherent property of the laser) to which the first material (copper foil 42, see figs.5a-b) is more reflective than the second material (insulating resin 41, see fig.5c, no reflected light is generated from the insulting resin 41.See figs.5a-5c and para.0040, “when the copper foil 42 is present, the return light detection sensor 18 detects the return light”, and when the insulating resin 41 is exposed in the hole, the detection cannot be performed. See more evidences in para.0034: “while the insulating resin 25 is being irradiated with the laser beam, almost no reflected light is generated from the workpiece 23. However, when the copper land 26 is exposed in the via hole, the laser light is reflected by the copper land 26 (the reflectance of the copper laser light is 99% or more”, with the same laser beam as shown in fig.1, the copper material of fig.1 , which is similar to the copper foil 42 of fig.5, is more reflective than the insulating resin);
capturing a back-reflection signal (return light to the return light detection sensor 18,see fig.1) corresponding to a portion of laser energy (the incidence of the laser light, see para.0037, 0040 and fig.4) directed to the workpiece (RCC substrate, see figs.4-5) and reflected by the first material (42,see foig.5 and para.0040: “when the copper foil 42 is present, the return light detection sensor 18 detects the return light”); generating a sensor signal based on the captured back-reflection signal (return light, see para.0040, captured by the sensor 18);
processing the sensor signal (signal from the sensor 18) to determine how a remainder of the process (remainder of the hole drilling process, see para.0040 and figs.5a-d) should be carried out to form the via (hole, see para.0040); and
carrying out the remainder of the process (remainder of the hole drilling process, see para.0040 and figs.5a-d) based on the processing of the sensor signal (See fig.5 and para.0040: “when the copper foil 42 is present, the return light detection sensor 18 detects the return light, but when a hole is formed in the copper foil portion 42 and the insulating resin 41 is exposed in the hole, the return light is detected. Since the detection cannot be performed, it can be detected that the boring process for the copper foil portion is completed”).
Regarding claim 11, Iso further discloses the laser energy (laser beam, see fig. 1) directed to the workpiece (RCC substrate, see figs.4-5) is manifested as at least one laser pulse (laser pulse from 11, see fig.1 and see para.0018: “laser oscillator 11 is a pulse oscillation type laser oscillator”) and wherein carrying out the remainder of the process (remainder of the hole drilling process, see para.0040 and figs.5a-d) includes adjusting a pulse energy of the least one laser pulse (see para.0030: “the laser oscillator 11 is controlled to pulse-oscillate and emit laser light”).
Regarding claim 13, Iso further discloses the laser energy (laser beam, see fig. 1) directed to the workpiece (RCC substrate, see figs.4-5) is manifested as at least one laser pulse (pulse from 11, see fig.1 and see para.0018: “laser oscillator 11 is a pulse oscillation type laser oscillator”) and wherein carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting the number of laser pulses to be directed to the workpiece (See para.0038: “If the detection signal is not obtained from, the laser oscillator 11 is controlled so as to irradiate laser light for one more shot”).
Regarding claim 16, Iso further discloses the laser energy directed to the workpiece is manifested as a laser pulse (see para.0018: “ a pulse oscillation type laser oscillator that generates an ultraviolet laser beam can also be used”) and wherein the remainder of the process (the remainder of hole drilling, see para.0040) is carried out while the laser pulse is directed to the workpiece (see fig.5a-c and para.0038, 0040).
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iso in view of Nakai (US 20010052659 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Iso discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, Iso further discloses the laser energy (laser beam, see fig. 1) directed to the workpiece (RCC substrate, see figs.4-5) is manifested as at least one laser pulse (11, see fig.1 and see para.0018: “laser oscillator 11 is a pulse oscillation type laser oscillator”), except the controller is operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling a pulse width of the least one laser pulse.
Nakai discloses Method and Apparatus for Laser Drilling, comprising:
the controller (10, see fig.1) is operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling a pulse width of the least one laser pulse (see para.0030: “pulse energy is controlled by controlling the pulse width”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Iso to be “operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling a pulse width of the least one laser pulse” as taught by Nakai. Doing so allows for precise manipulation of the energy delivered to the workpiece, directly impacting the quality, speed, and precision of the hole-making process.
Regarding claim 12, Iso discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, Iso further discloses the laser energy (laser beam, see fig. 1) directed to the workpiece (RCC substrate, see figs.4-5) is manifested as at least one laser pulse (pulse from 11, see fig.1 and see para.0018: “laser oscillator 11 is a pulse oscillation type laser oscillator”), except carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a pulse width of the least one laser pulse.
Nakai discloses Method and Apparatus for Laser Drilling, comprising:
carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a pulse width of the least one laser pulse (see para.0030: “pulse energy is controlled by controlling the pulse width”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Iso to incorporate the step of “carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a pulse width of the least one laser pulse” as taught by Nakai. Doing so allows for precise manipulation of the energy delivered to the workpiece, directly impacting the quality, speed, and precision of the hole-making process.
Claims 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iso in view of Edme (US 20040164057 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Iso discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the controller is operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling an average power of the laser energy.
Edme discloses Arrangement and Method for Processing Electrical Substrates Using Lasers, comprising:
the controller (controller, see para.0021) is operative to control the process (laser process, see para.0021), at least in part, by controlling an average power of the laser energy (see para.0021: “a controller which is in a position, depending on the application for the laser. to operate the laser with different combinations of average laser power and repetition rates”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Iso to be “operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling an average power of the laser energy” as taught by Edme. Doing so allows to optimize the drilling process, leading to improved efficiency, reduced downtown and enhanced product quality.
Regarding claim 14, Iso discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting an average power of the laser energy.
Edme discloses Arrangement and Method for Processing Electrical Substrates Using Lasers, comprising:
carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting an average power of the laser energy (see para.0021: “a controller which is in a position, depending on the application for the laser. to operate the laser with different combinations of average laser power and repetition rates”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Iso to incorporate the step of “carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting an average power of the laser energy” as taught by Edme. Doing so allows to optimize the drilling process, leading to improved efficiency, reduced downtown and enhanced product quality.
Claims 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iso in view of Sun (US 20090236323 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Iso discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the controller is operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling a peak power of the laser energy.
Sun discloses an improved method and apparatus for drilling vias, comprising:
the controller (controller, see claim 7) is operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling a peak power of the laser energy (See claim 7: “said tailored pulse including at least one power spike characterized by a peak power greater than about 20% above the average power of the pulse with a duration less than about 50% of the duration of the pulse.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Iso to be “operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling a peak power of the laser energy” as taught by Sun. Doing so provides an “improved ability to micromachine high quality vias in workpieces” (see para.007 of Sun). It also minimizes the thickness of the heat affected zone and obtain cleaner holes.
Regarding claim 15, Iso discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a peak power of the laser energy.
Sun discloses an improved method and apparatus for drilling vias, comprising:
carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a peak power of the laser energy (See claim 7: “said tailored pulse including at least one power spike characterized by a peak power greater than about 20% above the average power of the pulse with a duration less than about 50% of the duration of the pulse.”) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Iso to incorporate the step of “carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a peak power of the laser energy” of Sun. Doing so provides an “improved ability to micromachine high quality vias in workpieces” (see para.007 of Sun). It also minimizes the thickness of the heat affected zone and obtain cleaner holes.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iso in view of Deshi (US 20060169677 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Iso discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except a beam modulator operative to modulate the laser energy.
Deshi discloses method and apparatus for via drilling and selective material removal using an ultrafast pulse laser, comprising:
a beam modulator (3H, see fig.6) operative to modulate the laser energy (see para.0095: “The acousto optic modulator may have the following specifications, and it may be used to control the laser pulse from the ultrafast laser oscillator to minimize or eliminate the cumulative heating effect and to improve the machining quality”.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Iso to incorporate the “beam modulator operative to modulate the laser energy” as taught by Deshi. Doing so allows to “minimize or eliminate the cumulative heating effect and to improve the machining quality” (see para.0095 of Deshi).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki (US 20210031305 A1) in view of Iso (JPH11277261A)
Regarding claim 17, Nishiwaki discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium (memory, see para.0081) for use with a laser-processing apparatus (20, see figs.1-5) operative to carry out a process to form a via (one hole drilling process, see para.0023) in a workpiece (9, see fig.1), having a first material (material of 9, see fig.1) 4, see fig.1) onto the workpiece (9, see fig.1) such that the laser energy (4) is incident upon the first material (9, see fig.1), 20, see fig.1) has a back-reflection sensing system (8, see fig.2) operative to capture a back-reflection signal (L1, see fig.3) corresponding to a portion of laser energy (4, see fig.3) directed to the workpiece (9, see figs.2-3) and reflected by the first material (material of 9) and generate a sensor signal (signal from the sensor 8, see para.0027) based on the captured back-reflection signal (L1, see fig.2-3 and para.0027: “ The optical sensor 8, which is an example of a light measurement unit, receives scattered light L1 scattered at the irradiation position 3 during the laser processing, and outputs a voltage depending on the amount of the scattered light L1 thus received. The output voltage from the optical sensor 8 is sent to the control apparatus 10. The optical sensor 8 may send a signal other than the voltage to the control apparatus 10 as long as it is a signal depending on the amount of light”) and a controller (10, see fig.1) communicatively coupled to an output of the back-reflection sensing system (8, see fig.1 and para.0027: “The output voltage from the optical sensor 8 is sent to the control apparatus 10”), and wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium (memory, see para.0081) has stored thereon instructions (instructions shown in fig.6 and para.0081, it is clear that the memory of the control apparatus 10 stores instructions executed by the control apparatus 10) which, when executed by the controller (10), causes the controller (10) to control the process (piercing process, see fig.6) by which the via (hole, see para.002) is formed based on the sensor signal (see para.0028: “The control apparatus 10 determines whether a hole has penetrated the workpiece 9 at the irradiation position 3 on the basis of a change in the output voltage taken in during the piercing process”).
Nishiwaki does not expressly disclose
a workpiece having a first material formed on a second material; and
wherein the laser energy has a wavelength to which the first material is more reflective than the second material.
Iso discloses a laser drilling apparatus, comprising:
a workpiece (RCC substrate, see figs.1, 4,5) having a first material (42, see figs.4-5) formed on a second material (42, see figs.4-5); and
wherein the laser energy has a wavelength (wavelength of the laser light, see fig.1, which is an inherent property of the laser) to which the first material (copper foil 42, see figs.5a-b) is more reflective than the second material (insulating resin 41, see fig.5c, no reflected light is generated from the insulting resin 41.See figs.5a-5c and para.0040, “when the copper foil 42 is present, the return light detection sensor 18 detects the return light”, and when the insulating resin 41 is exposed in the hole, the detection cannot be performed. See more evidences in para.0034: “while the insulating resin 25 is being irradiated with the laser beam, almost no reflected light is generated from the workpiece 23. However, when the copper land 26 is exposed in the via hole, the laser light is reflected by the copper land 26 (the reflectance of the copper laser light is 99% or more”, with the same laser beam as shown in fig.1, the copper material of fig.1 , which is similar to the copper foil 42 of fig.5, is more reflective than the insulating resin).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the workpiece of Nishiwaki by the one as taught by Iso, so as the workpiece “having a first material formed on a second material; and wherein the laser energy has a wavelength to which the first material is more reflective than the second material” as claimed. The substitution one known element (workpiece of Iso) for another one (workpiece of Nishiwaki) would yield of predictable result of penetrating hole(s) at the desired portion(s) of the workpiece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US9463529B2 includes a transmission fiber that transmits laser light emitted from a laser oscillator through the fiber, a machining head that emits the laser light, which is sent from the transmission fiber, vertically to a main surface of a machining object and sends reflected light, which is reflected coaxially with the laser light by the machining object, to the transmission fiber, a reflected light monitoring unit that detects a reflected light intensity of the reflected light sent from the transmission fiber, and a control device that controls the laser oscillator and the machining head, in which the control device includes a determining unit that, at a time when laser machining is started, determines whether the machining object corresponds to a machining condition or not in laser machining on the basis of the reflected light intensity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761