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 .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 18452756 filed 8/21/2023. Claims 1-3 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings (Figs. 3-4B) are objected to, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(l), because the weight, density, and darkness of all lines and letters (dashed lines, solid lines, and text within and outside of shaded areas) are not heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1:
The recitation “a pulsed irradiation laser beam” (ll. 13-14) is believed to be in error for - - the pulsed irradiation laser beam - -.
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 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: “a feed mechanism that causes a relative processing feed of the chuck table and the laser beam irradiation unit” (claim 1).
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 recitation “laser oscillation unit that emits an initial pulsed laser beam” (claim 1) is not presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because “laser oscillation unit” is a term of art that one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize as sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, the recitation “the laser oscillation unit is configured to oscillate a pulsed laser of deep ultraviolet light at a pulse interval shorter than a thermal diffusion time in an SiO2 film stacked on an upper surface of the silicon substrate” (claim 1, last clause) is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what pulse interval is required of the laser oscillation unit. The thermal diffusion time is dependent on the thickness of the SiO2 film yet the film itself is not positively recited (the film is “stacked on an upper surface of the silicon substrate” whereas the silicon substrate is part of the wafer, which is not positively recited – the wafer is recited as an intended use of the chuck table at line 2). Since the wafer, and thus the silicon substrate, is not positively recited, the film is not required in the claim and the thermal diffusion time is not specified. Since the laser oscillation unit must be structurally configured to provide a pulse interval shorter than this thermal diffusion time, but the thermal diffusion time is not specified, it is unclear what pulse interval the laser oscillation unit is structurally required to provide.
Dependent Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependence from claim 1.
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, while parent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claim 3 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the pulse interval is expressly recited as being “shorter than 1 µs” rather than relying on a dimensional-dependent characteristic of the non-positively recited SiO2 film, thus clearly setting forth the metes and bounds of the claim.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hadano 20190111518.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Hadano teaches a laser processing machine (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a chuck table (22) that holds a wafer having a silicon substrate (silicon wafer 10);
a laser beam irradiation unit (discussed further below) that applies a pulsed irradiation laser beam to the wafer held on the chuck table (para. [0033]); and
a feed mechanism that causes a relative processing feed of the chuck table and the laser beam irradiation unit (interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), mechanisms 50/52; para. [0024]),
wherein the laser beam irradiation unit includes a laser oscillation unit (Fig. 4, oscillator 82) that emits an initial pulsed laser beam (para. [0033]), and a condenser (86) that condenses the initial pulsed laser beam emitted by the laser oscillation unit and focuses a pulsed irradiation laser beam on the wafer held on the chuck table (para. [0034]), and
the laser oscillation unit is configured to oscillate a pulsed laser of deep ultraviolet light (wavelength of 226 nm, which is within the range of deep ultraviolet light as defined by Applicant at specification para. [0020]; see Hadano at para. [0044]) at a pulse interval shorter than a thermal diffusion time in an SiO2 film stacked on an upper surface of the silicon substrate (pulse frequency at 300 MHz, which corresponds with a pulse interval of .003 µs, which is shorter than the thermal diffusion time of 1 µs disclosed by Applicant for the SiO2 film at spec. para. [0029]; see Hadano at para. [0046]), and to emit the initial pulsed laser beam (LB, see Fig. 4).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Hadano further teaches the deep ultraviolet light is a laser beam having a wavelength of 266 nm or shorter (226 nm; para. [0044]), and the initial pulsed laser beam emitted by the laser oscillation unit has a pulse width of 200 fs, which corresponds to a smallest point of energy density, or shorter (50 fs, which is shorter than 200 fs; para. [0047]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Hadano further teaches the laser beam irradiation unit is configured such that, when the initial pulsed laser beam emitted by the laser oscillation unit is applied as the pulsed irradiation laser beam, the pulsed irradiation laser beam has a pulse interval shorter than 1.0 μs that is the thermal diffusion time in the SiO2 film (as discussed for claim 1 above, the pulse interval is 0.003 µs, corresponding with Hadano’s repetition frequency of 300 MHz, which is shorter than the recited 1.0 µs; para. [0046]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741