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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/557,891 and PCT/SG2018/050467 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Accordingly, claims 1-8 and 10-17 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application, but they are entitled to the benefit provided by Application No. 16/492,408 filed 9 September 2019, e.g., claims 1 and 10 recite “gas to cool the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate to preserve its form after pre-heating,” which is not present in Application No. 62/557,891 or PCT/SG2018/050467 but is present in Application No. 16/492,408. Claim 9 is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of Application No. 18/439,405 but not because “the laser is scanned at a speed of 1 – 20 m/s” was added in Application No. 18/439,405. Thus, the effective filing date of claims 1-8 and 10-17 is 9 September 2019. The effective filing date of claim 9 is 12 February 2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “gas ejector” and the “system of pipes” of claim 1 and the “vacuum chamber” and the “heated plate” of claims 1 and 10 and the must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because of the following reasons:
The arrows in fig. 1B are in the wrong direction.
Solid black shading is used in figs. 3A, 3B, 4A, and 5, which is not permitted (MPEP 608.02). Spaced lines are preferred for cross sections.
The arrows in fig. 5 mingle with the shaded surfaces, which interferes with the comprehension of the arrows (MPEP 608.02).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: the description for fig. 7A mentions number 322, which is not shown in fig. 7A.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because in fig. 3A reference characters "200" and "202" have both been used to designate the cutting jig.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending “trenches.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 13 of claim 1, recommend amending the claim to recite: “comprises.”
In claims 1 and 10, recommend amending the claims to recite: “a direction of the laser.”
In claim 10, recommend amending line 10 to recite: “gas through a cutting nozzle.”
In claim 10, recommend deleting “additional” in line 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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.
The term “fast-cooling gas” in claims 1 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fast-cooling” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear which gases are considered to be “fast-cooling.” For example, is an inert gas considered “fast-cooling,” but if a gas that is not inert, would this gas be considered “fast-cooling?” For the purpose of the examination, the term will be interpreted as “
The term “high speed” in claims 1 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high speed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear which speeds are considered to be “high.” The Specification discloses “The invention includes methods that use dual focused laser beams at high speed (i.e., 1-20 m/s) for singulation of mold compound packages.” For the purpose of the examination, speeds between 1 and 20 m/s will be interpreted as being “high speed.”
Claim 2 recites “wherein the laser is split into two beams.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on the structure of the laser or based on the method step for splitting a laser beam into two beams. Recommend claiming the beam splitter in claim 2.
Claims 14-15 recite “further comprising a step of ejecting pressurized air or gas.” Claims 14-15 are dependent on claim 10, which recites “ejecting pressured air or gas.” It is unclear how many steps are required for ejecting pressurized air or gas. Claims 14-15 recite “further comprising a step,” suggesting that “further” ejecting steps are required. However, the Specification only describes only one ejecting step (shown in fig. 1B). For the purpose of the examination, claims 14-15 will be interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring only one ejecting step.
Claims 3-9 and 11-13 and 16-17 are rejected based on their dependence to the independent claims.
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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aikawa et al. (JP-2016064418-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Wood et al. (US-20160118280-A1), Higano et al. (JP-2011177782-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), and Lei et al. (US-20150104929-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aikawa teaches a system (fig. 1) for singulation (“planned dividing line of the package substrate,” para 0007) of a polymer resin mold compound-based substrate (silicone resin 104, fig. 4) into packages (package substrate 10, fig. 4) by a laser ablation process (“the package substrate 10 is properly cut along the dividing lines 102,” para 0024) comprised of:
a laser (fig. 1, “laser processing apparatus,” para 0012);
a jig (workpiece holding means 36, fig. 1) for holding the polymer resin compound (“holding a workpiece,” para 0015; silicone resin 104, fig. 4),
wherein the laser (condenser 51 directs laser beam LB, fig. 5a) cuts along trenches (grooves 361b, figs. 3 and 5a and laser processing grooves 110, fig. 5c) that are embedded in the jig (“the holding surface 361 is the upper surface of the holding table,” para 0022), and
wherein a cutting nozzle (nozzles 362a and 362b, fig. 3) that forces compressed air or gas (“high pressure air,” para 0017) in the direction of the laser (direction opposite of X1, figs. 5a-b; air moves from left to right, figs. 5a-b) to allow single pass singulation of units (“the package substrate 10 is properly cut along the dividing lines 102,” para 0024),
wherein a bottom portion of the jig (“suction table,” para 0009) to allow suction on units during cutting (para 0022),
wherein the laser is a pulsed laser beam (“pulse laser beam,” para 0024).
Aikawa, figs. 1 and 3
PNG
media_image1.png
670
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
352
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Aikawa does not explicitly disclose a buffer station comprising a heated plate to pre-heat the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate and a gas ejector for cooling gas to cool the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate to preserve its form after pre-heating; wherein the jig is cooled by circulating a liquid through a base plate with a system of internal pipes; a high speed; at least one vacuum chamber.
However, in the same field of endeavor of manufacturing semiconductors, Wood teaches a buffer station (buffer station 100, fig. 1A) comprising a heated plate (support surface 141, fig. 1A) to pre-heat the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate (“the lower pedestal 140 is operable to heat or cool a semiconductor substrate supported on the support surface 141,” para 0012) and a gas ejector (outlet 143 and passage 142, fig. 1A) for cooling gas (“supply heat transfer gas,” para 0016; construed such that the gas can cause heat transfer away from the pedestal 140 to cause “cooling,” para 0014; para 0038) to cool the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate to preserve its form (if “cooling” is performed, then cooling the wafer will cause the wafer’s form to be preserved) after pre-heating (“a lower pedestal having the capability to pre-heat semiconductor substrate,” para 0028; the lower pedestal 140 is capable of cooling, using a heat transfer gas, and pre-heating; “the buffer stations 100 are operable to pre-heat or cool a semiconductor substrate,” para 0030; construed such that the buffer station 100 is capable of pre-heating before cooling).
Wood, fig. 1A
PNG
media_image3.png
200
445
media_image3.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 Aikawa to include a buffer station, in view of the teachings of Wood, where a buffer station is used to pre-heat and to deliver a heat-transfer gas at a desired pressure to reduce the temperature, as taught by Wood, prior to being cut, as taught by Aikawa, because semiconductor substrates are often processed in vacuum chambers in thermally controlled environments, and by using a buffer station that controls the temperature and pressure between chambers, the throughput of a semiconductor substrate processing system increases due to the quicker access of semiconductor substrates facilitated by a buffer transfer station (paras 0002-0004 and 0015).
Aikawa/Wood do not explicitly disclose wherein the jig is cooled by circulating a liquid through a base plate with a system of internal pipes; a high speed; at least one vacuum chamber.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Higano teaches wherein the jig (jig 4, fig. 2) is cooled by circulating (“circulating a coolant,” para 0010, page 2) a liquid (coolant liquid 5a, fig. 2) through a base plate (top part of jig 4, fig. 2) with a system of internal pipes (“the cooling mechanism 5 has a structure in which, for example, cooling water is circulated,” para 0020; the internal structure of the cooling mechanism 5 is construed as the claimed “system of internal pipes;” pipes are defined as a hollow body for conducting a liquid); at least one vacuum chamber (cavity 4b, fig. 2; “these suction holes 4a are supplied from a vacuum source via a cavity 4b formed inside the jig.,” para 0021).
Higano, fig. 2
PNG
media_image4.png
389
531
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 Aikawa to include a water-cooled adsorption jig 4, in view of the teachings of Higano, by using the jig 4, as taught by Higano, in the suction table, as taught by Aikawa, in order to circulate coolant liquid inside the jig during laser processing, so that that the processing heat generated by the laser light is absorbed by the jig, preventing heat accumulation on a workpiece, which is dynamically held, thus suppressing the occurrence of cracks in the resin film, and so that a cavity is used as a source of vacuum suction, for the advantage of using a suction table that has both a water-cooling function as well as a vacuum adsorption function (Higano, paras 0010-0011, 0021, 0026, and 0029, page 2).
Aikawa/Wood/Higano do not explicitly disclose a high speed.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Lei teaches a high speed (“preferably approximately in the range of 600 mm/sec to 2 m/sec,” para 0065; construed as overlapping with a range of 1-20 m/s).
Lei, fig. 5
PNG
media_image5.png
1086
770
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 Aikawa, in view of the teachings of Lei, by using a femtosecond laser source, as taught by Lei, as the laser processing apparatus, as taught by Aikawa, in order to use a femtosecond-based laser irradiation process, where the processing parameters do not cause microcracking or delamination of the same material slacks (Lei, paras 0062, 0065, and 0067) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 2, Aikawa teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the laser is split into two beams.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Lei teaches wherein the laser is split into two beams (two beams at different focal spots in fig. 4A, para 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aikawa, in view of the teachings of Lei, by using a dual focus lens to provide two focal spots, as taught by Lei, for the laser beam, as taught by Aikawa, in order to create dual focus beam spots, which extend the capability of the laser to remove thick layers, which would otherwise be incapable of being processed properly if a single focus lens was used (Lei, para 0045).
Regarding claim 3, Aikawa teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the laser is scanned with a galvanometer scanner.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Lei teaches wherein the laser is scanned with a galvanometer scanner (“Galvo,” fig. 4B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aikawa, in view of the teachings of Lei, by using a Galvo scanner, as taught by Lei, for the laser beam, as taught by Aikawa, in order to position the beam onto the substrate as it moves, for the advantage of enabling the laser scribing process (Lei, para 0042).
Regarding claim 4, Aikawa teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the laser is focused on a first ablation spot and a second ablation spot.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Lei teaches wherein the laser is focused on a first ablation spot (Focal spot 1, fig. 4A) and a second ablation spot (Focal spot 2, fig. 4A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aikawa, in view of the teachings of Lei, by using a dual focus lens to provide two focal spots, as taught by Lei, for the laser beam, as taught by Aikawa, in order to create dual focus beam spots, which extend the capability of the laser to remove thick layers, which would otherwise be incapable of being processed properly if a single focus lens was used (Lei, para 0045).
Regarding claim 6, Aikawa teaches wherein the trenches have a width greater than or equal to 0.5 mm (“1 to 2 mm,” para 0016).
Regarding claim 7, Aikawa teaches wherein vacuum pressure holds the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate to the jig (“sucked,” para 0022).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Aikawa in view of Wood, Higano, and Lei as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 8. Specifically, Lei teaches wherein the laser is a pulsed laser with a repetition rate of 10 kHz and above (“300 kHz or higher pulse repetition rate,” para 0047).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Aikawa in view of Wood, Higano, and Lei as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Lei teaches wherein the laser is scanned at a speed of 1 – 20 m/s (“preferably approximately in the range of 600 mm/sec to 2 m/sec,” para 0065; construed as overlapping with a range of 1-20 m/s).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aikawa et al. (JP-2016064418-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Wood et al. (US-20160118280-A1), Higano et al. (JP-2011177782-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), and Lei et al. (US-20150104929-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yu et al. (KR-20150091435-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Aikawa teaches the invention as described above as well as wherein the trenches have a width greater than or equal to 1 millimeter (“1 to 2 mm,” para 0016). Aikawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the trenches have a depth of 1 to 3 centimeters (Aikawa does not explicitly disclose a depth for the grooves).
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Yu teaches wherein the trenches (annular groove 60, fig. 1) have a depth of 1 to 3 centimeters (“depth of from about 0.3 cm to about 2 cm,” page 9, line 17; construed as overlapping with the claimed range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aikawa to include a sputtering plate, in view of the teachings of Yu, by adding a sputtering plate around the jig, such that suction holes of the jig were aligned to the annular groove of the sputtering plate and of equal depth and width, in order to add a sputtering plate that confined a magnetic field around a target or substrate to improve the sputtering applied to the substrate such that the sputtering plate provided improved durability and utilization time by reducing the erosion caused by sputtering to the grooves or holes in the jig (Yu, page 1, lines 24-35 and page 6, lines 30-35) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aikawa et al. (JP-2016064418-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Wood et al. (US-20160118280-A1), Ueno et al. (US-8148271-B2), Higano et al. (JP-2011177782-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), and Lei et al. (US-20150104929-A1).
Regarding claim 10, Aikawa teaches a method of singulation (“planned dividing line of the package substrate,” para 0007) of a polymer resin mold compound-based substrate (silicone resin 104, fig. 4) into packages by a laser cutting process (“the package substrate 10 is properly cut along the dividing lines 102,” para 0024) comprised of steps of,
loading the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate onto a cutting jig (workpiece holding means 36, fig. 1; “holding a workpiece,” para 0015; silicone resin 104, fig. 4),
activating a vacuum (“suction means,” para 0022) to secure the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate to the cutting jig (para 0022),
activating a pulse laser (fig. 1, “laser processing apparatus,” para 0012; “pulse laser beam,” para 0024) to cut the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate along a series of trenches (grooves 361b, figs. 3 and 5a and laser processing grooves 110, fig. 5c) that are embedded in the cutting jig (“the holding surface 361 is the upper surface of the holding table,” para 0022),
ejecting pressurized air or gas (“high pressure air,” para 0017) through cutting nozzle (nozzles 362a and 362b, fig. 3) in the direction of the laser (direction opposite of X1, figs. 5a-b; air moves from left to right, figs. 5a-b) to allow single pass singulation of units (“the package substrate 10 is properly cut along the dividing lines 102,” para 0024).
Aikawa does not explicitly disclose pre-heating the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate at a buffer station comprising a heated plate; at least one vacuum chamber; at high speed; circulating a liquid through a base plate of the cutting jig to cool the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate, and an additional step of injecting cooling gas to cool the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate to preserve its form after pre-heating before loading the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate onto the cutting jig.
However, in the same field of endeavor of manufacturing semiconductors, Wood teaches pre-heatinq the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate (“the lower pedestal 140 is operable to heat or cool a semiconductor substrate supported on the support surface 141,” para 0012) at a buffer station (buffer station 100, fig. 1A) comprising a heated plate (support surface 141, fig. 1A), and an additional step of injecting cooling gas (“deliver a heat transfer gas,” para 0016; construed such that the gas can cause heat transfer away from the pedestal 140 to cause “cooling,” para 0014; para 0038) to cool the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate to preserve its form (if “cooling” is performed, then cooling the wafer will cause the wafer’s form to be preserved) after pre-heating (“a lower pedestal having the capability to pre-heat semiconductor substrate,” para 0028; “after” pre-heating is not explicitly disclosed) before loading the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate onto the cutting jig (“The pre-heating of the semiconductor substrate before the semiconductor substrate is transferred to a respective processing module for processing,” para 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aikawa to include a buffer station, in view of the teachings of Wood, where a buffer station is used to pre-heat and to deliver a heat-transfer gas at a desired pressure to reduce the temperature, as taught by Wood, prior to being cut, as taught by Aikawa, because semiconductor substrates are often processed in vacuum chambers in thermally controlled environments, and by using a buffer station that controls the temperature and pressure between chambers, the throughput of a semiconductor substrate processing system increases due to the quicker access of semiconductor substrates facilitated by a buffer transfer station (paras 0002-0004 and 0015).
Aikawa/Wood do not explicitly disclose at least one vacuum chamber; at high speed; circulating a liquid through a base plate of the cutting jig to cool the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate, and an additional step of injecting cooling gas after pre-heating.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Ueno teaches an additional step of injecting cooling gas after pre-heating (“After the heat treatment, the gas supply nozzle and/or the side coolant gas supply nozzles blow the nitrogen gas serving as the coolant gas onto the wafer group,” column 14, lines 53-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aikawa/Wood, in view of the teachings of Ueno, such that the cooling and preheating, as taught by Wood, take place consecutively, as taught by Ueno, in order to quickly and uniformly lower the temperature of the processed substrate after heating, preventing a temperature differential from occurring between the wafers in the wafer group, which may render adverse effects to the substrate due to exposure to oxygen, thereby avoiding oxidation, resulting in an improved quality of the film (Ueno, column 2, lines 44-47 and column 14, line 61-column 15, line 2).
Aikawa/Wood/Ueno do not explicitly disclose at least one vacuum chamber; at high speed; circulating a liquid through a base plate of the cutting jig to cool the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Higano teaches at least one vacuum chamber (cavity 4b, fig. 2; “these suction holes 4a are supplied from a vacuum source via a cavity 4b formed inside the jig.,” para 0021); circulating (“circulating a coolant,” para 0010, page 2) a liquid (coolant liquid 5a, fig. 2) through a base plate (top part of jig 4, fig. 2) of the cutting jig (jig 4, fig. 2) to cool the polymer resin mold compound-based substrate (“polytetrafluoroethylene film,,” para 0016; heat transfers from the resin film 7 to the metal film 8 to the jig 4, para 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aikawa to include a water-cooled adsorption jig 4, in view of the teachings of Higano, by using the jig 4, as taught by Higano, in the suction table, as taught by Aikawa, in order to circulate coolant liquid inside the jig during laser processing, so that that the processing heat generated by the laser light is absorbed by the jig, preventing heat accumulation on a workpiece, which is dynamically held, thus suppressing the occurrence of cracks in the resin film, and so that a cavity is used as a source of vacuum suction, for the advantage of using a suction table that has both a water-cooling function as well as a vacuum adsorption function (Higano, paras 0010-0011, 0021, 0026, and 0029, page 2).
Aikawa/Wood/Ueno/Higano do not explicitly disclose at high speed.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Lei teaches at high speed (“preferably approximately in the range of 600 mm/sec to 2 m/sec,” para 0065; construed as overlapping with a range of 1-20 m/s).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aikawa, in view of the teachings of Lei, by using a femtosecond laser source, as taught by Lei, as the laser processing apparatus, as taught by Aikawa, in order to use a femtosecond-based laser irradiation process, where the processing parameters do not cause microcracking or delamination of the same material slacks (Lei, paras 0062, 0065, and 0067) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 11, Aikawa teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a step of using a beam splitter to split a laser beam from the pulse laser into a first beam and a second beam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Lei teaches further comprising a step of using a beam splitter (dual focus lens, fig. 4A; construed a beam splitter because the beam splits into two beams, where each beam has a focal spot) to split a laser beam from the pulse laser into a first beam (beam for focal spot 1, fig. 4A) and a second beam (beam for focal spot 2, fig. 4A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aikawa, in view of the teachings of Lei, by using a dual focus lens to provide two focal spots, as taught by Lei, for the laser beam, as taught by Aikawa, in order to create dual focus beam spots, which extend the capability of the laser to remove thick layers, which would otherwise be incapable of being processed properly if a single focus lens was used (Lei, para 0045).
Regarding claim 12, Aikawa teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a step of focusing the laser beam with a galvanometer scanner.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Lei teaches further comprising a step of focusing the laser beam (“two focal points,” para 0042) with a galvanometer scanner (“Galvo,” fig. 4B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aikawa, in view of the teachings of Lei, by using a Galvo scanner for two beams that are focused on two focal spots, as taught by Lei, for the laser beam, as taught by Aikawa, in order to position the beam onto the substrate as it moves, for the advantage of enabling the laser scribing process (Lei, para 0042).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Aikawa in view of Wood, Ueno, Higano, and Lei as set forth above regarding claim 11 teaches the invention of claim 13. Specifically, Lei teaches further comprising a step of focusing the laser beam onto a first ablation spot (Focal spot 1, fig. 4A) and a second ablation spot (Focal spot 2, fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 14, Aikawa teaches further comprising a step of ejecting pressurized air or gas (“high pressure air,” para 0017) in the direction of the laser (direction opposite of X1, figs. 5a-b; air moves from left to right, figs. 5a-b) to cool an area ablated by the laser (“blowing off a molten material of the workpiece,” para 0011; construed such that when the molten material is blown off, the area of the workpiece cools due to the absence of the material that has been melted by the laser).
Regarding claim 15, Aikawa teaches further comprising a step of ejecting pressurized air or gas (“high pressure air,” para 0017) in the direction of the laser (direction opposite of X1, figs. 5a-b; air moves from left to right, figs. 5a-b) to remove debris (“blowing off a molten material of the workpiece,” para 0011; molten material is construed as being the claimed debris).
Regarding claim 16, Aikawa teaches further comprising a step of exhausting debris (“molten material,” para 0009) and/or fumes through one or more exhaust openings (outlets of the grooves 361b, fig. 3) along edges of the cutting jig (bottom left and right edges of holding table 361, fig. 3).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aikawa et al. (JP-2016064418-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Wood et al. (US-20160118280-A1), Ueno et al. (US-8148271-B2), Higano et al. (JP-2011177782-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), and Lei et al. (US-20150104929-A1) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Yoshikawa (US-20040140300-A1).
Aikawa teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising steps of removing packages from the cutting jig and transferring the packages to a cleaning station.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Yoshikawa teaches further comprising steps of removing packages from the cutting jig and transferring the packages (“the chuck table 36 releases the suction holding of the semiconductor wafer 10. Then, the semiconductor wafer 10 is transported to a cleaning step, the subsequent step, by transport means,” para 0044) to a cleaning station (a cleaning station subjecting the substrate to spinner cleaning is described in para 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aikawa to include a separate cleaning station that included spinner cleaning, in view of the teachings of Yoshikawa, in order to remove dust and debris from the face of the semiconductor wafer (Yoshikawa, para 0042).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lu et al. (US-20060189099-A1) teach using two beams to cut a wafer.
Iizuka et al. (US-7863160-B2) teach using two beams to cut a wafer.
Sawabe et al. (US-20150034617-A1) teach using two beams to cut a wafer.
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 6/17/2026
Prosecution Insights