DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 05/22/2023. Claims 1-3 are currently pending.
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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “LASER PROCESSING APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING DESIRED PROCESSING ON A WORKPIECE”.
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:
“an X-axis feed mechanism” in claim 2 as well as “a Y-axis feed mechanism” in claim 2; “mechanism” being the generic placeholder; “configured to processing-feed the chuck table and the laser beam irradiating unit relative to each other in the X-axis direction (or alternatively, the Y-axis direction)” being the functional language recited in the claim; the claim having insufficient structural limitations recited therein.
The corresponding structure recited in the specification is: “The X-axis feed mechanism 41 converts rotary motion of a motor 43 into rectilinear motion via a ball screw 44, and transmits the rectilinear motion to the X-axis direction movable plate 31. The X-axis feed mechanism 41 thereby moves the X-axis direction movable plate 31 in the X-axis direction along a pair of guide rails 2a and 2a arranged along the X-axis direction on the base 2. The Y-axis feed mechanism 42 converts rotary motion of a motor 45 into rectilinear motion via a ball screw 46, and transmits the rectilinear motion to the Y-axis direction movable plate 32. The Y-axis feed mechanism 42 thereby moves the Y-axis direction movable plate 32 in the Y-axis direction along a pair of guide rails 31a and 31a arranged along the Y-axis direction on the X-axis direction movable plate 31” in pr. 17. Also see figs. 1-2.
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.
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 1-3 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 lines 26-27 recites the limitation "the number of passes of the pulsed laser beam reaching the limit value of the processing depth". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 lines 39-41 recites the limitation "the number of passes of the pulsed laser beam to be applied to a section in the processing width". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 lines 46-51 recites the limitation "the number of spots [determined from the spot diameter of the pulsed laser beam, the overlap rate of the spots, the overlap rate being stored in the overlap rate storage section, and the processing width calculated by the processing width calculating section]". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1 last paragraph, the limitation “the controller performing control to perform desired processing on the workpiece held on the chuck table by irradiating the processing width calculated by the processing width calculating section in the non-product region selected by the selecting section on a basis of the X-coordinates and the Y-coordinates stored in the processing trajectory storage section with the pulsed laser beam in the number of passes calculated by the pass number calculating section” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 is presented as an apparatus claim, however, this section referenced above is draft more as an intended use of the controller or a method step. This leads to uncertainty as to what is positively required by the claimed invention. The Examiner recommends amending this section to be phrased using the word “configured” (e.g., “the controller is configured to perform desired processing on the workpiece […]”, or something to that effect).
Claims 2-3 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) due to their respective dependency upon claim 1 rejected above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, no prior art was found which anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed invention. In particular, “the controller including
a processing trajectory storage section configured to store X-coordinates and Y-coordinates of processing trajectories to be formed on the workpiece held on the chuck table,
a thickness storage section configured to store a thickness of the workpiece,
a limit processing depth storage section configured to store a spot diameter of the pulsed laser beam and a limit value of a processing depth,
a pass number storage section configured to store the number of passes of the pulsed laser beam reaching the limit value of the processing depth,
an overlap rate storage section configured to store an overlap rate of spots,
a selecting section configured to select a product region and a non-product region,
a processing width calculating section configured to calculate a processing width by multiplying, by the spot diameter, a value obtained by dividing the thickness stored in the thickness storage section by the limit value stored in the limit processing depth storage section, and
a pass number calculating section configured to calculate the number of passes of the pulsed laser beam to be applied to a section in the processing width by multiplying the value obtained by dividing the thickness stored in the thickness storage section by the limit value stored in the limit processing depth storage section by the number of passes stored in the pass number storage section, and multiplying a result of the multiplication by the number of spots determined from the spot diameter of the pulsed laser beam, the overlap rate of the spots, the overlap rate being stored in the overlap rate storage section, and the processing width calculated by the processing width calculating section, and
the controller performing control to perform desired processing on the workpiece held on the chuck table by irradiating the processing width calculated by the processing width calculating section in the non-product region selected by the selecting section on a basis of the X-coordinates and the Y-coordinates stored in the processing trajectory storage section with the pulsed laser beam in the number of passes calculated by the pass number calculating section”, in context within the claim, was not found within the prior art found.
While much of the general structure (such as: the chuck table, pulsed laser beam, laser oscillator, condenser, controller, etc.) was found in the prior art; see US 2011/0195537 JP2012240082A. The particular structure/configuration of the controller that is claimed was not found.
The closest reference found was US 6586707 which disclosed a laser processing apparatus for a wafer with a pulsed laser beam which may interface with a focusing lens, the laser processing apparatus defining a trench which is produced by cutting out a series of layers, each with a defined depth and each layer made up of a number of laser lines with an offset between them. While this reference does discuss calculating a target width or channel width, it teaches of a different calculation than the instant invention and is instead a function of the number of laser lines, lateral offset, and spot diameter. No discussion of calculating the number of passes of the pulsed laser beam to be applied to a section in the processing width was found in the prior art. References such as US 10818554, US 2016/0129526 and JP2000288752A disclosed of a similar channel/trench process utilizing a laser beam to define a channel width and that multiple passes can be done to obtain a deeper depth. They all similarly fail to disclose a controller which is configured to do the calculations as required by the claim. No rationale or motivation were found the modify these references such that they would render obvious the claimed invention. For the reasons listed above, the claimed invention is deemed to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8518803 and CN110385521B – discloses a laser processing method where there is an overlap amount/rate, this overlap being adjusted to fall within a desired range, also discloses how to control it.
US 8735772 and US 8871540 – discloses a laser processing apparatus which presents defining a groove/trench with the use of several laser lines across the width of the groove/trench.
US 2024/0269769 – mentions the use of a F-theta lens for a laser processing apparatus
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745