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 .
Specification
The lengthy 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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending paragraphs 0021, 0029, and 0035 to refer to a “phrase” instead of a “phase.”
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 the following:
“support part” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “part” and the functional limitations are “support” and “configured to support a wafer.”
“irradiation part” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “part” and the functional limitations are “irradiation” and “configured to irradiate the street with laser light.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “light source.”
“control part” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “part” and the functional limitations are “control” and “configured to control the irradiation part.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “computer.”
“image capture part” in claim 3
The generic placeholder is “part” and the functional limitations are “image capturing” and “configured to acquire image data.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes an infrared imaging camera.
“distance measuring part” in claim 4
The generic placeholder is “part” and the functional limitations are “distance measuring” and “configured to acquire height data.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “sensor.”
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a support part configured to support a wafer,” but the Specification fails to disclose any structure in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand what a “support part” is or that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing.
Claims 2-5 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
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.
Claim limitation “support part” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a control part configured to control the irradiation part based on information regarding the street…the information regarding the street includes information indicating that, when a modified region is formed in the wafer along a line passing through the street, a fracture extending from the modified region does not reach the street along the line in the first region, and reaches the street along the line in the second region.” It is unclear what effect this limitation that is attributed to the information has on the structure of the claim. For example, this limitation could mean that the control part is configured to control the irradiation part to form a modified region, which would definite and unambiguous. However, it could mean instead that only “information” about a modified region is required (it is not clear from the claim that the control part actually has to be configured to form a modified region). The Specification does not clarify this limitation but instead adds more ambiguity about what this limitation means. Paragraph 0007 of the Specification describes that what is intended is actually that an “assumption” is made about the modified region. It is unclear what effect an “assumption” has on the scope of the claim and how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to identify whether an assumption has been made or not. The Applicant can overcome this rejection by attributing the limitation to the structure of the claim 1 (the control part) instead of attributing to the limitation to the “information” that is used by the control part.
Claim 6 has a similar issue as that in claim 1, where it is unclear if claim 6 requires an actual step of forming a modified region or if there must only be “information” about a modified region that can be formed. This confusion is further reinforced by claim 8, which requires “a fourth step of forming the modified region” (suggesting that an actual step is of forming a modified region is not required in claim 6). Recommend clearly identifying in claim 6 whether a method step is required for forming a modified region.
Claims 2-5 and 7-8 are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claims.
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.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe et al. (US-20180277456-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Abe teaches a laser processing method (“Semiconductor device manufacturing method,” title; “laser beam,” abstract) comprising:
a first step (process back surface 102A, fig. 1) of preparing a wafer (wafer 1W, fig. 33) including a plurality of functional elements (chips 1C, fig. 33) disposed to be adjacent to each other via a street (cutting regions CR, fig. 33); and
a second step (divide into chips 102B, fig. 1) of, after the first step, irradiating the street (figs. 31-32) with laser light based on information regarding the street (“irradiation with the laser beam of the first round, based on the pattern information obtained by the IR camera,” para 0166) such that a surface layer of the street is removed in a first region (the metal patterns 20 and test pads 1LBt are construed as the “first region”) of the street (holes 21 are formed in the metal patterns 20 and the test pads 1LBt, para 0167; forming holes is construed as removing a surface layer) and the surface layer remains in a second region (the areas in between the metal patterns 20 and test pads 1LBt are construed as the claimed “second region”) of the street (no holes are formed in these space-in-between regions), wherein
the information regarding the street includes information indicating that (after the “first round” in figs. 31-35, a “second round” of irradiation is executed to form modified regions in figs. 36-37; construed as information indicating a modified region is formed), when a modified region (modified regions PR, figs. 36-37) is formed in the wafer along a line passing through the street (along lines in the center of holes 21, figs. 33 and 36-37), a fracture (“the wafer 1W is divided (cut) by bending the wafer 1W,” para 0170; when this wafer is bent to cause a cut, this is construed as forming a fracture) extending from the modified region does not reach the street along the line in the first region (at the test pads 1LBt and metal patterns 20, the cut is does not reach the surface of the cutting region but instead reaches the bottom of the test pads 1LBt and metal patterns 20 where the holes 21 are located, figs. 36-38), and reaches the street along the line in the second region (in the space-in-between the metal patterns 20 and test pads 1LBt, the cut form by bending goes all the way to the top surface of CR; this appears to be the same arrangement shown in fig. 13 of the Instant Application).
Abe, figs. 33 and 36-38 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
972
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
986
879
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
528
879
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Abe teaches further comprising: a fourth step (figs. 36-37) of forming the modified region (modified region PR, figs. 36-37) in the wafer along the line (along lines in the center of holes 21, figs. 33 and 36-37), after the first step (irradiating the laser step 102B2 takes place after the process back surface step 102A, fig. 1).
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 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US-20180277456-A1) in view of Genda et al. (US-20200215649-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abe teaches a laser processing apparatus (“dicing apparatus,” para 0142; construed as being the same apparatus used in the “third embodiment,” para 0162) comprising:
a support part (“jig,” para 0142) configured to support (“vacuum sucked,” para 0143) a wafer (wafer 1W, fig. 33) including a plurality of functional elements (chips 1C, fig. 33) disposed to be adjacent to each other via a street (cutting regions CR, fig. 33);
an irradiation part (“laser generating unit,” para 0144) configured to irradiate the street with laser light (laser beam LB2, figs. 31-32); and
a control part (a computer is not explicitly disclosed) configured to control the irradiation part based on information regarding the street (“irradiation with the laser beam of the first round, based on the pattern information obtained by the IR camera,” para 0166) such that a surface layer of the street is removed in a first region (the metal patterns 20 and test pads 1LBt are construed as the “first region”) of the street (holes 21 are formed in the metal patterns 20 and the test pads 1LBt, para 0167; forming holes is construed as removing a surface layer) and the surface layer remains in a second region (the areas in between the metal patterns 20 and test pads 1LBt are construed as the claimed “second region”) of the street (no holes are formed in these space-in-between regions), wherein
the information regarding the street includes information indicating that (after the “first round” in figs. 31-35, a “second round” of irradiation is executed to form modified regions in figs. 36-37; construed as information indicating a modified region is formed), when a modified region (modified regions PR, figs. 36-37) is formed in the wafer along a line passing through the street (along lines in the center of holes 21, figs. 33 and 36-37), a fracture (“the wafer 1W is divided (cut) by bending the wafer 1W,” para 0170; when this wafer is bent to cause a cut, this is construed as forming a fracture) extending from the modified region does not reach the street along the line in the first region (at the test pads 1LBt and metal patterns 20, the cut is does not reach the surface of the cutting region but instead reaches the bottom of the test pads 1LBt and metal patterns 20 where the holes 21 are located, figs. 36-38), and reaches the street along the line in the second region (in the space-in-between the metal patterns 20 and test pads 1LBt, the cut form by bending goes all the way to the top surface of CR; this appears to be the same arrangement shown in fig. 13 of the Instant Application).
Abe does not explicitly disclose a control part (a computer is not explicitly disclosed).
However, in the same field of laser processing semiconductor wafers, Genda teaches a control part (“control unit 50 includes a computer system,” para 0035).
Genda, fig. 13
PNG
media_image4.png
675
905
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Genda, by using a computer, as taught by Genda, to operate the laser processing, as taught by Abe, in order to control the focal distance of the processing laser beam so that the laser beam’s focus is positioned in a range of approximately 10 to 50 μm at the correct position for the modified layer, for the advantage of using a uniform distance that can be adjusted by the computer, enabling adjustment of the focal distance, e.g., if a different material is present in the streets resulting a different reflectance requiring an adjustment in the focal distance for the laser beam (Genda, paras 0007, 0044, and 0048).
Regarding claim 2, in the third embodiment, Abe does not explicitly disclose wherein the control part controls at least one of the support part and the irradiation part such that the laser light relatively moves along the street, and the control part controls the irradiation part such that an output of the laser light is turned ON when the laser light relatively moves on the first region, and the output of the laser light is turned OFF when the laser light relatively moves on the second region.
However, in the first embodiment, Abe teaches the control part controls the irradiation part such that an output of the laser light is turned ON when the laser light relatively moves on the first region (laser beam is “intermittently irradiated,” para 049, at the “modified regions” in fig. 14; the modified regions in fig. 14 are construed as the claimed “first region”), and the output of the laser light is turned OFF when the laser light relatively moves on the second region (laser beam is “intermittently irradiated,” para 0149; the space in between the modified regions in fig. 14 are construed as the claimed “second region”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the third embodiment of Abe, in view of the first embodiment of Abe, by intermittently irradiating the laser beam, as taught in fig. 14, so that holes are formed only in the test pads 1LBt and metal patterns 20, as taught in fig. 33, in order to decrease the radiation area of the laser beam, because the insulating film is a low-dielectric-constant film and by reducing the heat, the discoloration of the film can be suppressed (Abe, para 0149).
Abe does not explicitly disclose wherein the control part controls at least one of the support part and the irradiation part such that the laser light relatively moves along the street.
However, in the same field of laser processing semiconductor wafers, Genda teaches wherein the control part (control unit 50, fig. 13) controls at least one of the support part (chuck table 10, fig. 13) and the irradiation part (“the laser beam applying unit 31 is controlled by the control unit 50,” para 0044) such that the laser light relatively moves along the street (streets 103, fig. 1; relative laser processing takes place along the lines 105 in the streets 103, fig. 1, and paras 0042 and 0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Genda, by using a computer, as taught by Genda, to operate the laser processing and the jig, as taught by Abe, such that the laser generator and the jig are moved relatively to each other, as taught by Genda, in order to control the focal distance of the processing laser beam so that the laser beam’s focus is positioned in a range of approximately 10 to 50 μm at the correct position for the modified layer along the central line through the streets, for the advantage of using a uniform distance that can be adjusted by the computer, enabling adjustment of the focal distance, e.g., if a different material is present in the streets resulting a different reflectance requiring an adjustment in the focal distance for the laser beam (Genda, paras 0007, 0044, and 0048).
Regarding claim 3, Abe teaches further comprising: an image capturing part (“IR camera,” para 0166) configured to acquire image data of the street (“pattern information” of the “cutting lines,” para 0166), wherein the control part controls the irradiation part based on the image data and the information regarding the street (“the cutting lines CL are aligned (corrected in position), and then the laser beam LB2 emitted,” para 0166) such that the surface layer is removed in the first region and the surface layer remains in the second region (“he laser beam LB2 is moved along the cutting lines aligned based on the pattern information,” para 0166; annotated fig. 33 above shows the “first region” and the “second region”).
Regarding claim 4, Abe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a distance measuring part configured to acquire height data of the street, wherein the control part controls the irradiation part based on the height data and the information regarding the street such that the surface layer is removed in the first region and the surface layer remains in the second region.
However, in the same field of laser processing semiconductor wafers, Genda teaches further comprising: a distance measuring part (position detecting unit 21, fig. 13; uses a “photodetector,” which is construed as a sensor, para 0032) configured to acquire height data of the street (“detecting the height position of the workpiece,” para 0031; “the position detecting lines 120 are represented by straight lines in the streets 103,” para 0039), wherein the control part controls the irradiation part based on the height data and the information regarding the street (“positioning a focused spot 130 of a processing laser beam 32 having a wavelength transmittable through the workpiece 100, within the workpiece 100 on the basis of the height position detected in the height position detecting step,” para 0042) such that the surface layer is removed in the first region and the surface layer remains in the second region (limitations taught by Abe).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Genda, by using a height position detecting unit, as taught by Genda, to operate the laser processing, as taught by Abe, in order to control the focal distance of the processing laser beam so that the laser beam’s focus is positioned in a range of approximately 10 to 50 μm at the correct position for the modified layer, for the advantage of using a uniform distance that can be adjusted by the computer, enabling adjustment of the focal distance, e.g., if a different material is present in the streets resulting a different reflectance requiring an adjustment in the focal distance for the laser beam (Genda, paras 0007, 0044, and 0048).
Regarding claim 5, Abe teaches wherein the information regarding the street (“pattern information,” para 0166) includes position information (“a substantially center of the cutting region CR in a width direction,” para 0166) of a tip of the fracture that does not reach the first region (the annotated locations where the cut stops in figs. 36-37 above are construed as the claimed “tip;” this construed tip is positioned at the center of the cutting region, fig. 33).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US-20180277456-A1) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Masaru (JP-5968150-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Abe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a third step of acquiring the information regarding the street by using a test wafer, before the first step.
However, in the same field of laser processing semiconductor wafers, Masaru teaches further comprising: a third step of acquiring the information (“image processing,” page 15) regarding the street (“modification layer K is formed by a laser beam L,” page 15; construed as inspection information of a cutting region that is ablated by a laser) by using a test wafer (“surface WS of the wafer WA,” page 15; wafer WA is construed as a “test wafer”), before the first step (“after the inspection process, the surface WS side of another wafer W (hereinafter referred to as WB) among the multiple wafers W having the same position and shape of the aforementioned metal pattern is placed on the chuck table 2 of the
laser processing apparatus,” para 0018; processing another wafer WB is construed as the first step and second steps of claim 6 taught by Abe).
Masaru, fig. 3
PNG
media_image5.png
446
294
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Abe, in view of the teachings of Masaru, by using an inspection wafer WA, as taught by Masaru, before processing a wafer, as a taught by Abe, in order to use an inspection step to calibrate and change the output of the laser beam before processing, for the advantage of suppressing the deterioration of pressing quality due to the alteration of preeling of the surface film on the wafers during laser processing (Masaru, para 0008)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ota et al. (US-20220102502-A1) teach meandering in streets.
Sugimoto et al. (US-20240033859-A1) teach an invention similar to the Instant Application.
Korematsu et al. (US-12275091-B2) teach different laser processing states.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/25/2026
Prosecution Insights