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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/20/2026. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/8/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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:
“evaluation unit” in claims 1, 5, 6, and 8;
“optical branching element” in claims 3 and 4; and
“correction control unit” in claims 7 and 8.
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.
Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the evaluation unit and the correction control unit are units within a control device that can be “constituted by an arithmetic device such as a personal computer, and includes an arithmetic circuit constituted from various processors, memories, and the like. Various processors include a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic device [for example, a simple programmable logic device (SPLD), a complex programmable logic device (CPLD), and a field programmable gate array (FPGA)], and the like. Note that various functions of the control device 24 may be realized by one processor, or may be realized by a plurality of processors of the same type or different types” (para [0059] of Applicant’s published application, US 2024/0261891).
Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the optical branching element can be a half mirror or a prism: “half mirror 34 corresponds to an optical branching element of the present invention .… Note that a known optical branching element (a beam splitter) such as a prism may be used instead of the half mirror 34” [0050].
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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuno et al. (US 2010/0032418).
Regarding claim 1, Kuno discloses a laser processing device (Fig. 16, “laser processing apparatus 100” [0095]) that irradiates a workpiece with laser light by aligning light-focusing points from a laser head to an inside of the workpiece while moving the laser head relative to the workpiece and executes laser processing of forming a laser processing area inside the workpiece along a street of the workpiece (Fig. 16, “object 1 is irradiated with processing laser light L1 while using the front face 3 as a laser light irradiation surface and locating a converging point P within the silicon wafer 11, so as to form a molten processed region 13 along each line to cut 5” [0095]), comprising:
a detection sensor (Fig. 16, “photodiode 115” [0099]) configured to detect plasma light generated at a processing point of the laser light that is focused on the inside of the workpiece by the laser head during the laser processing (“converged light image of the reflected light component L3 of the measuring laser light having the astigmatism added thereto is thus formed on the light-receiving surface of the quadrant photodiode 115, and consequently varies depending on the position of the converging point of the measuring laser light L3 with respect to the front face (laser light irradiation surface) 3 of the object 1 positioned within the processing region 30” [0099]; and
an evaluation unit (Fig. 16, evaluation unit is part of “converging lens control section 116” [0100]) configured to evaluate a processing state of the laser processing area on the basis of a detection signal of the detection sensor during the laser processing (“converging lens control section 116 connected to the piezoelectric device 109 is connected to the quadrant photodiode 115. The converging lens control section 116 functions to detect the quantity of the reflected light component L3 of the measuring laser light reflected by the processing region 30, acquire the converged light image formed on the light-receiving surface of the quadrant photodiode 115 as a voltage value when the light quantity exceeds a predetermined threshold, drive the piezoelectric device 109 such that the voltage value becomes constant (i.e., the converged light image becomes constant), so as to keep a substantially constant distance between the front face 3 of the object 1 and the converging lens 108, and record the driving signal for the piezoelectric device 109 at that time” [0100]; that is, a detection signal of photodiode 115 is evaluated within converging lens control section 116, wherein it is determined whether a light quantity exceeds a threshold; this light quantity relates to a processing state of the laser processing area).
Regarding claim 5, Kuno discloses wherein the workpiece has a plurality of first streets and a plurality of second streets intersecting each other to form a lattice shape (Fig. 14 shows workpiece / object 1 and “lines to cut 5” [0095] forming a lattice shape),
the laser processing includes first laser processing of forming the laser processing area inside the workpiece along the first street for each of the first streets, and second laser processing of forming the laser processing area inside the workpiece along the second street for each of the second streets after completion of the first laser processing (the structure of laser processing apparatus 100 is capable of performing this claimed function), and
the evaluation unit evaluates whether the laser processing area is formed by the second laser processing as the processing state at an intersection of the first street and the second street during the second laser processing (the evaluation unit of Kuno, described in the rejection of claim 1, is capable of evaluating whether the laser processing area is formed by the second laser processing as the processing state at an intersection of the first street and the second street during the second laser processing, since the evaluation unit utilizes data from photodiode 115 in the processing region 30 [0099], and the processing region 30 is every location where processing occurs, including at intersections of the cut lines).
Regarding claim 6, Kuno discloses wherein the laser light is pulse laser light (“laser unit 102 has a processing laser light source 104 for pulse-oscillating the processing laser light L1” [0097]), and
the evaluation unit executes evaluation of the processing state on the basis of a result of detecting at least one of a light emission period, a light emission intensity, a light emission timing, and a light emission time of the plasma light based on the detection signal of the detection sensor (“converging lens control section 116 functions to detect the quantity of the reflected light component L3 of the measuring laser light reflected by the processing region 30” [0097]; in this context, the “quantity of the reflected light corresponds to a light emission intensity).
Regarding claim 7, Kuno discloses a correction control unit (Fig. 16, correction control unit is part of “converging lens control section 116” [0100]) configured to correct emission conditions of the laser light emitted from the laser head on the basis of a detection signal of the detection sensor during the laser processing, and to keep a constant light emission state of the plasma light generated at the processing point (“converging lens control section 116 connected to the piezoelectric device 109 is connected to the quadrant photodiode 115. The converging lens control section 116 functions to detect the quantity of the reflected light component L3 of the measuring laser light reflected by the processing region 30, acquire the converged light image formed on the light-receiving surface of the quadrant photodiode 115 as a voltage value when the light quantity exceeds a predetermined threshold, drive the piezoelectric device 109 such that the voltage value becomes constant (i.e., the converged light image becomes constant), so as to keep a substantially constant distance between the front face 3 of the object 1 and the converging lens 108, and record the driving signal for the piezoelectric device 109 at that time” [0100]).
Regarding claim 8, Kuno discloses a laser processing device (Fig. 16, “laser processing apparatus 100” [0095]) that irradiates a workpiece with laser light by aligning light-focusing points from a laser head to an inside of the workpiece while moving the laser head relative to the workpiece and executes laser processing of forming a laser processing area inside the workpiece along a street of the workpiece (Fig. 16, “object 1 is irradiated with processing laser light L1 while using the front face 3 as a laser light irradiation surface and locating a converging point P within the silicon wafer 11, so as to form a molten processed region 13 along each line to cut 5” [0095]), comprising:
a detection sensor (Fig. 16, “photodiode 115” [0099]) configured to detect plasma light generated at a processing point of the laser light that is focused on the inside of the workpiece by the laser head during the laser processing (“converged light image of the reflected light component L3 of the measuring laser light having the astigmatism added thereto is thus formed on the light-receiving surface of the quadrant photodiode 115, and consequently varies depending on the position of the converging point of the measuring laser light L3 with respect to the front face (laser light irradiation surface) 3 of the object 1 positioned within the processing region 30” [0099];
an evaluation unit (Fig. 16, evaluation unit is part of “converging lens control section 116” [0100]) configured to evaluate a processing state of the laser processing area on the basis of a detection signal of the detection sensor during the laser processing (“converging lens control section 116 connected to the piezoelectric device 109 is connected to the quadrant photodiode 115. The converging lens control section 116 functions to detect the quantity of the reflected light component L3 of the measuring laser light reflected by the processing region 30, acquire the converged light image formed on the light-receiving surface of the quadrant photodiode 115 as a voltage value when the light quantity exceeds a predetermined threshold, drive the piezoelectric device 109 such that the voltage value becomes constant (i.e., the converged light image becomes constant), so as to keep a substantially constant distance between the front face 3 of the object 1 and the converging lens 108, and record the driving signal for the piezoelectric device 109 at that time” [0100]; that is, a detection signal of photodiode 115 is evaluated within converging lens control section 116, wherein it is determined whether a light quantity exceeds a threshold; this light quantity relates to a processing state of the laser processing area), and
a correction control unit (Fig. 16, correction control unit is part of “converging lens control section 116” [0100]) configured to correct emission conditions of the laser light emitted from the laser head on the basis of a detection signal of the detection sensor during the laser processing, and to keep a constant light emission state of the plasma light generated at the processing point (“converging lens control section 116 connected to the piezoelectric device 109 is connected to the quadrant photodiode 115. The converging lens control section 116 functions to detect the quantity of the reflected light component L3 of the measuring laser light reflected by the processing region 30, acquire the converged light image formed on the light-receiving surface of the quadrant photodiode 115 as a voltage value when the light quantity exceeds a predetermined threshold, drive the piezoelectric device 109 such that the voltage value becomes constant (i.e., the converged light image becomes constant), so as to keep a substantially constant distance between the front face 3 of the object 1 and the converging lens 108, and record the driving signal for the piezoelectric device 109 at that time” [0100]).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno et al. (US 2010/0032418).
Regarding claim 2, Kumo does not expressly disclose wherein the detection sensor is provided separately from the laser head.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the detection sensor is provided separately from the laser head, because the court has held that making components separable may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). MPEP § 2144.04-V-C.
Regarding claim 3, Kuno discloses wherein the laser head includes:
a light source that emits the laser light (Fig. 16, “ laser light source 104” [0097]),
an objective lens that focuses the laser light emitted from the light source on the inside of the workpiece (Fig. 16, objective lens / “converging lens 108” [0097]), and
an optical branching element that is disposed on an optical path of the laser light incident on the objective lens and causes a part of the plasma light incident on the objective lens from the workpiece to branch from the optical path (Fig. 16, optical branching element / “half mirror 113” [0098]),
wherein the detection sensor (Fig. 16, detection sensor / photodiode 115) detects the plasma light branched by the optical branching element (“reflected light component L3 of the measuring laser light transmitted through the half mirror 113 is provided with astigmatism by a shaping optical system 114 composed of a cylindrical lens and a planoconvex lens and converged onto a light-receiving surface of a quadrant photodiode 115” [0099]).
Kuno does not expressly disclose wherein the detection sensor is provided in the laser head.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the detection sensor is provided in the laser head, as this is merely a rearrangement of parts. That is, Fig. 16 shows schematically the configuration of laser processing apparatus 100, but does not show the physical location of the detection sensor. Regardless, even if the detection sensor is not provided in the laser head, it is merely a rearrangement of parts to provide the detection sensor in the laser head. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Regarding claim 4, Kuno discloses wherein the laser head includes:
a light source that emits the laser light (Fig. 16, “ laser light source 104” [0097]),
an objective lens that focuses the laser light emitted from the light source on the inside of the workpiece (Fig. 16, objective lens / “converging lens 108” [0097]), and
an optical branching element that is disposed on an optical path of the laser light incident on the objective lens and causes a part of the plasma light incident on the objective lens from the workpiece to branch from the optical path (Fig. 16, optical branching element / “half mirror 113” [0098]),
Kuno does not expressly disclose wherein the detection sensor includes,
a first detection sensor that is provided separately from the laser head, and
a second detection sensor that is provided in the laser head and detects the plasma light branched by the optical branching element.
However, Kuno discloses wherein the detection sensor (Fig. 16, detection sensor / photodiode 115) include a detection sensor that detects the plasma light branched by the optical branching element (“reflected light component L3 of the measuring laser light transmitted through the half mirror 113 is provided with astigmatism by a shaping optical system 114 composed of a cylindrical lens and a planoconvex lens and converged onto a light-receiving surface of a quadrant photodiode 115” [0099]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the detection sensor includes a first detection sensor and a second detection sensor, as this is merely a duplication of parts. The detection sensor / photodiode 115 of Kuno functions as the claimed second detection sensor. As claimed, the first detection sensor does not provide a particular different function. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to include two detection sensors, because “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B. Additionally, it would have been obvious to include wherein the second detection sensor is provided in the laser head as this is merely a rearrangement of parts. That is, Fig. 16 shows schematically the configuration of laser processing apparatus 100, but does not show the physical location of the detection sensor. Regardless, even if the detection sensor is not provided in the laser head, it is merely a rearrangement of parts to provide the detection sensor in the laser head. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0343562 is directed to a laser machining device and method, wherein “detection unit 9 detects the state of the modified region R formed when the object S is irradiated with the laser light L” [0051].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights