DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 18147469. Each of the limitations of the pending case either is identical in language to or is anticipated by corresponding limitations in the reference case. This is because the limitations which differ in the reference case lie entirely within the scope of the pending claim. The noticeable differences between the limitation of the cases are as follows:
Claim 1 of the reference case states a substrate. This lies entirely within the scope of the limitations of pending claim 19 which states of a mask.
Claim 1 of the reference case states a substrate having a chemical coated thereon. This lies entirely within the scope of the limitations of pending claim 19 which states a mask in which a liquid film is formed by the chemical liquid
Claim 1 of the reference case states a light-transmitter. This lies entirely within the scope of the limitations of pending claim 19 which states a micro-mirror device, a flat top optical mechanism, a Galvano scanner, and an F-Theta lens, each of which individually satisfy the term of a light-transmitter.
Pending claims
Reference claims
Claim 1: A substrate treating apparatus comprising: a substrate support unit configured to support a substrate having a chemical coated thereon; a laser generation unit configured to irradiate a laser to the substrate; and a light-transmitter positioned along a path at which the laser is irradiated.
Claim 19. A mask treatment apparatus for treating an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) mask by reflecting an EUV light and forming a pattern on a substrate, the apparatus comprising: a support unit configured to support a mask; a liquid supply unit configured to supply a chemical liquid that is an etchant to the mask; and a laser beam irradiation unit configured to irradiate, with a laser beam, the mask in which a liquid film is formed by the chemical liquid supplied by the liquid supply unit, and adjust a critical dimension of a pattern formed in the mask, wherein the laser beam irradiation unit includes: a laser beam source configured to generate a laser beam having a Gaussian shape; a digital micro-mirror device (DMD) element configured to modulate the laser beam generated by the laser beam source to form an irradiation pattern; a laser beam dumper configured to remove a laser beam of which a reflection direction is changed by the DMD element and which is thus not irradiated to the substrate, a hole through which the laser beam modulated by the DMD element passes being formed in the laser beam dumper, and a plurality of grooves configured to remove the laser beam not irradiated to the substrate being formed in an inner surface of the laser beam dumper; a flat top optical mechanism installed between the laser beam source and the DMD element and configured to convert the laser beam having a Gaussian shape into a laser beam having a flat top shape; an irradiation position change mechanism that is a Galvano scanner configured to change a position at which the mask is irradiated with the laser beam modulated by the DMD element; and an F-Theta lens positioned between the irradiation position change mechanism and the support unit and configured to change a traveling direction of the laser beam passing through the irradiation position change mechanism in a vertical direction.
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 substrate support unit” in claims 1, 12, and 20, “a laser generation unit” in claims 1, 12, and 20, “a light-transmitter transfer unit” in claims 2, 12, and 20, and “a laser transfer unit” in claim 12.
Regarding the term “a substrate support unit” in claims 1, 12, and 20, 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. A review of the drawings found the corresponding structure of a flat structure capable of holding and moving the substrate (per fig. 6).
Regarding the term “a laser generation unit” in claims 1, 12, and 20, 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. A review of the specifications found the corresponding structure of a laser source (per para. 64).
Regarding the term “a laser transfer unit” in claims 2, 12, and 20, 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. A review of the specifications found the corresponding structure of a structure which is connected to and moves the laser generator (per para. 65).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OH (KR 20060072225 A).
Regarding claim 1, OH (KR 20060072225 A) teaches a substrate treating apparatus (Figure 2) comprising:
a substrate support unit (Pages 12-13, chamber 160 is seated at a table 135) configured to support a substrate having a chemical coated thereon (Page 13, metal foil is fixed in the chamber 160 wherein metal foil 180 is submerged in an etching solution 170; Page 10, etching solution comprises any one of phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, or potassium hydroxide solution);
a laser generation unit configured to irradiate a laser to the substrate (Figure 2 Page 15, laser from a laser light source 111 is directed to a metal foil 180 to be processed); and
a light-transmitter positioned along a path at which the laser is irradiated (Figure 2 Page 15, laser from a laser light source is directed through an optical fiber transmitter 120).
Regarding claim 2, OH teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 1, further comprising
a light-transmitter transfer unit (Page 13, transfer arm 131 coupled with holder 132 to be transferred in a horizontal and vertical direction) coupled to the light-transmitter and configured to transfer the light-transmitter (Pages 11-12, end optical fiber portion 122 of the optical fiber transmitter 120 is coupled to the holder 132 of the processing stage 130).
Regarding claim 4, OH teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 2, wherein
the light-transmitter is positioned so a bottom portion thereof is immersed in the chemical (Page 13, the end of the optical fiber portion 122 is submerged in the etching solution).
Regarding claim 5, OH teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 4, wherein
the bottom portion of the light-transmitter is positioned apart from the substrate (Page 13, the end of the optical fiber portion 122 is submerged in the etching solution while being spaced apart from the metal foil).
Regarding claim 6, OH teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the light-transmitter is formed having an outer surface inclined toward a bottom direction so a diameter of a cross section becomes smaller toward a bottom (Figure 3 Page 12, diameter of the end of the optical fiber portion 122 becomes smaller toward an end of the core 124 which is rounded convexly in a shape of a lens).
Regarding claim 9, OH teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the light-transmitter is positioned only at a partial region among a laser irradiation path (Figure 2 Page 11, optical fiber transmitter 120 is spaced from the laser light source 111 with regard to a focusing lens 113).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH (KR 20060072225 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hann (US 20230264300 A1).
Regarding claim 3, OH teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 1.
OH fails to explicitly teach:
a cross section of the light-transmitter is shaped as any one among a circle, an oval, a square, or a polygon.
Hann (US 20230264300 A1) teaches a laser apparatus using optical fibers, wherein:
a cross section of the light-transmitter is shaped as any one among a circle, an oval, a square, or a polygon (Figures 5-6 Paragraph 70, cross section of the light transmitter can be seen to be circular/oval or alternatively in a square shape).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH with Hann and have a cross section of the light-transmitter be shaped as any one among a circle, an oval, a square, or a polygon. This would have been done to deliver the laser light while prevent light from escaping to the outside of the optical fiber (Hann Paragraph 77).
The Office further notes that the MEPE teaches that mere changes in shape are not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. MPEP §2144.04.IV.B. In this case, having the cross section of the light-transmitter be one among a circle, an oval, a square, or a polygon is not patentably distinguishable over prior art.
Regarding claim 7, OH teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 1.
OH fails to explicitly teach:
an outer coupling body formed to surround an outer side of the light-transmitter.
Hann (US 20230264300 A1) teaches a laser apparatus using optical fibers, wherein:
an outer coupling body formed to surround an outer side of the light-transmitter (Figure 6 Paragraphs 76-77, delivery optical fiber 115a comprises a core part 115, a cladding part 115b, an interlayer formed between the core part 115a and the cladding part 115b, and an acrylic coating layer 115c).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH with Hann and have the optical fiber comprise an outer coupling body to form an outer side of the light-transmitter. This would have been done to deliver the laser light while prevent light from escaping to the outside of the optical fiber (Hann Paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 8, OH teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 7.
Hann further teaches:
the outer coupling body is formed at a region aside from a top and a bottom of the light-transmitter (Figure 6, portions of optical fiber 115 outside of core part 115a are formed throughout the optical fiber 115 such as to deliver the laser light), and
the outer coupling body is formed having a lower refractive index than a refractive index of the light-transmitter or having a reflective surface with a high reflectivity on an inner side surface (Paragraphs 71 and 77, refractive index is highest at the core and decreases it gets further from the core).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 7.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH (KR 20060072225 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dunsky (US 6433301 B1) and Kathman (US 6025938 A).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH (KR 20060072225 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dunsky (US 6433301 B1).
Regarding claim 10, OH teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 1.
OH fails to teach “a diffusion unit configured to diffuse a laser which has passed through the light-transmitter, and which is composed at a bottom of the light-transmitter”. However, Dunsky (US 6433301 B1) teaches a beam shaping method with laser beams to form vias wherein a diffractive optical element is used to shape Gaussian irradiance profiles (Dunsky Column 3 Lines 38-49) and an aperture mask used to diffuse the laser (Dunsky Figure 7A Column 7 Line 45 – Column 8 Line 19). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH with Dunsky and have a diffractive optical element diffuse the laser which passes through the optical fiber as well as an aperture mask used to diffuse the laser at the focusing portion. This would have been done to obtain a substantially uniform intensity laser spot from its center to its edge so that high quality vias can be drilled rapidly without risk of bottom damage (Dunsky Column 3 Lines 38-49) and to sharpen the edge of the shaped pulses (Dunsky Column 7 Lines 45-47).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH (KR 20060072225 A) in view Dunsky (US 6433301 B1) of as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kathman (US 6025938 A).
Regarding claim 11, OH as modified teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 10.
OH as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the diffusion unit has a plurality of grooves or a plurality of protrusions which are irregularly distributed.
Kathman (US 6025938 A) teaches a beam homogenizer for a laser system, wherein:
the diffusion unit has a plurality of grooves or a plurality of protrusions which are irregularly distributed (Figure 4 Column 15 Line 45 – Column 16 Line 5, homogenizer 10 comprises an array of facet areas made of irregular pattern of plateaus and vias such to form a uniform spatial power distribution; Figure 4 Column 12 Lines 3-37, the beam homogenizer causes angular spread and thus can reasonably be considered a diffusion unit; Column 10 Lines 8-29, homogenizer is applicable to a laser processing apparatus)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH with Kathma and have the diffusion unit comprise a beam homogenizer comprising a plurality of irregularly patterned plateaus. This would have been done to minimize the intensity variations caused by edges or breaks (Kathman Column 10 Line 66 – Column 11 Line 15).
Claim(s) 12-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH (KR 20060072225 A) in view of NOMARU (US 20230201961 A1)
Regarding claim 12, OH (KR 20060072225 A) teaches a substrate treating method (Figure 2) comprising:
seating a substate on a substrate support unit (Page 13, metal foil is fixed in the chamber 160 wherein metal foil 180 is submerged in an etching solution 170; Page 10, etching solution comprises any one of phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, or potassium hydroxide solution);
positioning a light-transmitter along a laser path of which a laser is irradiated from the laser generation unit with a light-transmitter transfer unit (Page 13, transfer arm 131 coupled with holder 132 to be transferred in a horizontal and vertical direction; Pages 11-12, end optical fiber portion 122 of the optical fiber transmitter 120 is coupled to the holder 132 of the processing stage 130);
irradiating the laser from the laser generation unit to the light-transmitter and transmitting the laser to a target region of the substrate by the light-transmitter (Figure 2 Page 15, laser from a laser light source 111 is directed to a metal foil 180 to be processed; Figure 2 Page 15, laser from a laser light source is directed through an optical fiber transmitter 120); and
etching the substrate by a laser which has reached the target region (Page 8, laser irradiates a metal foil submerged in an etching solution inside the chamber such as to facilitate the etching process).
OH fails to explicitly teach:
positioning a laser generation unit at a top space of the substrate by transferring with a laser transfer unit;
NOMARU (US 20230201961 A1) teaches a surface processing machine, comprising:
positioning a laser generation unit at a top space of the substrate by transferring with a laser transfer unit (Figure 3 Paragraph 26, laser oscillator 44 which emits a laser beam is positioned above the wafer 10; Paragraph 23, laser applying unit 42 is mounted on a movable base 41);
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH with NOMARU and have a laser generation unit be positioned at a top space of the substrate by means of a movable base. This would have been done to allow the processing unit to be raised and lowered (NOMARU Paragraph 24).
The Office further notes that the adjustment of position of a laser source is well known in the art as evidenced by Kumkar (US 20220184744 A1).
Regarding claim 13, OH as modified teaches the substrate treating method of claim 12, wherein
a bottom portion of the light-transmitter is positioned to be immersed in a chemical at the positioning the light-transmitter (Page 13, the end of the optical fiber portion 122 is submerged in the etching solution).
Regarding claim 14, OH as modified teaches the substrate treating method of claim 13, wherein
a bottom portion of the light-transmitter is positioned apart from the substrate (Page 13, the end of the optical fiber portion 122 is submerged in the etching solution while being spaced apart from the metal foil).
Regarding claim 15, OH as modified teaches the substrate treating method of claim 13, wherein
the light-transmitter is formed having an outer surface inclined toward a bottom direction so a diameter of a cross section becomes smaller toward a bottom (Figure 3 Page 12, diameter of the end of the optical fiber portion 122 becomes smaller toward an end of the core 124 which is rounded convexly in a shape of a lens).
Regarding claim 18, OH as modified teaches the substrate treating method of claim 13.
the light-transmitter is positioned only at a partial region among a laser irradiation path (Figure 2 Page 11, optical fiber transmitter 120 is spaced from the laser light source 111 with regard to a focusing lens 113).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH (KR 20060072225 A) in view of NOMARU (US 20230201961 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hann (US 20230264300 A1).
Regarding claim 16, OH as modified teaches the substrate treating method of claim 13.
OH as modified fails to explicitly teach:
an outer coupling body formed to surround an outer side of the light-transmitter.
Hann (US 20230264300 A1) teaches a laser apparatus using optical fibers, wherein:
an outer coupling body formed to surround an outer side of the light-transmitter (Figure 6 Paragraphs 76-77, delivery optical fiber 115a comprises a core part 115, a cladding part 115b, an interlayer formed between the core part 115a and the cladding part 115b, and an acrylic coating layer 115c).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH with Hann and have the optical fiber comprise an outer coupling body to form an outer side of the light-transmitter. This would have been done to deliver the laser light while prevent light from escaping to the outside of the optical fiber (Hann Paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 17, OH as modified teaches the substrate treating method of claim 16.
Hann further teaches:
the outer coupling body is formed at a region aside from a top and a bottom of the light-transmitter (Figure 6, portions of optical fiber 115 outside of core part 115a are formed throughout the optical fiber 115 such as to deliver the laser light), and
the outer coupling body is formed having a lower refractive index than a refractive index of the light-transmitter or having a reflective surface with a high reflectivity on an inner side surface (Paragraphs 71 and 77, refractive index is highest at the core and decreases it gets further from the core).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 7.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH (KR 20060072225 A) in view of NOMARU (US 20230201961 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Dunsky (US 6433301 B1).
Regarding claim 19, OH as modified teaches the substrate treating method of claim 13.
OH fails to teach “a diffusion unit at a bottom of the light-transmitter configured to diffuse a laser which has passed through the light-transmitter”. However, Dunsky (US 6433301 B1) teaches a beam shaping method with laser beams to form vias wherein a diffractive optical element is used to shape Gaussian irradiance profiles (Dunsky Column 3 Lines 38-49) and an aperture mask used to diffuse the laser (Dunsky Figure 7A Column 7 Line 45 – Column 8 Line 19). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH with Dunsky and have a diffractive optical element diffuse the laser which passes through the optical fiber as well as an aperture mask used to diffuse the laser at the focusing portion. This would have been done to obtain a substantially uniform intensity laser spot from its center to its edge so that high quality vias can be drilled rapidly without risk of bottom damage (Dunsky Column 3 Lines 38-49) and to sharpen the edge of the shaped pulses (Dunsky Column 7 Lines 45-47).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH (KR 20060072225 A) in view of Hann (US 20230264300 A1), Dunsky (US 6433301 B1), and Kathman (US 6025938 A).
Regarding claim 20, OH (KR 20060072225 A) teaches a substrate treating apparatus (Figure 2) comprising:
a substrate support unit (Pages 12-13, chamber 160 is seated at a table 135) configured to support a substrate having a chemical coated thereon (Page 13, metal foil is fixed in the chamber 160 wherein metal foil 180 is submerged in an etching solution 170; Page 10, etching solution comprises any one of phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, or potassium hydroxide solution);
a laser generation unit configured to irradiate a laser to the substrate (Figure 2 Page 15, laser from a laser light source 111 is directed to a metal foil 180 to be processed);
a light-transmitter positioned along a path at which the laser is irradiated (Figure 2 Page 15, laser from a laser light source is directed through an optical fiber transmitter 120);
a light-transmitter transfer unit (Page 13, transfer arm 131 coupled with holder 132 to be transferred in a horizontal and vertical direction) coupled to the light-transmitter and configured to transfer the light-transmitter (Pages 11-12, end optical fiber portion 122 of the optical fiber transmitter 120 is coupled to the holder 132 of the processing stage 130);
the light-transmitter is positioned to a bottom portion thereof is immersed in the chemical (Page 13, the end of the optical fiber portion 122 is submerged in the etching solution),
the bottom portion of the light-transmitter is positioned apart from the substrate (Page 13, the end of the optical fiber portion 122 is submerged in the etching solution while being spaced apart from the metal foil),
the light-transmitter is formed having an outer surface inclined toward a bottom direction so a diameter of a cross section becomes smaller toward a bottom (Figure 3 Page 12, diameter of the end of the optical fiber portion 122 becomes smaller toward an end of the core 124 which is rounded convexly in a shape of a lens),
the light-transmitter is positioned only at a partial region among a laser irradiation path (Figure 2 Page 11, optical fiber transmitter 120 is spaced from the laser light source 111 with regard to a focusing lens 113).
OH fails to teach:
an outer coupling body formed to surround an outer side of the light-transmitter; and
a diffusion unit configured to diffuse a laser which has passed through the light-transmitter, and which is composed at a bottom of the light-transmitter, and
wherein a cross section of the light-transmitter is shaped as any one among a circle, an oval, a square, or a polygon,
the outer coupling body is formed at a region aside from a top and a bottom of the light-transmitter,
the outer coupling body is formed having a lower refractive index than a refractive index of the light-transmitter or having a reflective surface with a high reflectivity on an inner side surface,
the diffusion unit has a plurality of grooves or a plurality of protrusions which are irregularly distributed.
Hann (US 20230264300 A1) teaches a laser apparatus using optical fibers, wherein:
an outer coupling body formed to surround an outer side of the light-transmitter (Figure 6 Paragraphs 76-77, delivery optical fiber 115a comprises a core part 115, a cladding part 115b, an interlayer formed between the core part 115a and the cladding part 115b, and an acrylic coating layer 115c)
wherein a cross section of the light-transmitter is shaped as any one among a circle, an oval, a square, or a polygon (Figures 5-6 Paragraph 70, cross section of the light transmitter can be seen to be circular/oval or alternatively in a square shape),
the outer coupling body is formed at a region aside from a top and a bottom of the light-transmitter (Figure 6, portions of optical fiber 115 outside of core part 115a are formed throughout the optical fiber 115 such as to deliver the laser light),
the outer coupling body is formed having a lower refractive index than a refractive index of the light-transmitter or having a reflective surface with a high reflectivity on an inner side surface (Paragraphs 71 and 77, refractive index is highest at the core and decreases it gets further from the core),
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH with Hann and have a cross section of the light-transmitter be shaped as any one among a circle, an oval, a square, or a polygon. This would have been done to deliver the laser light while prevent light from escaping to the outside of the optical fiber (Hann Paragraph 77).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH with Hann and have the optical fiber comprise an outer coupling body to form an outer side of the light-transmitter. This would have been done to deliver the laser light while prevent light from escaping to the outside of the optical fiber (Hann Paragraph 77).
The Office further notes that the MEPE teaches that mere changes in shape are not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. MPEP §2144.04.IV.B. In this case, having the cross section of the light-transmitter be one among a circle, an oval, a square, or a polygon is not patentably distinguishable over prior art.
OH as modified with Hann fails to teach:
a diffusion unit configured to diffuse a laser which has passed through the light-transmitter, and which is composed at a bottom of the light-transmitter, and
the diffusion unit has a plurality of grooves or a plurality of protrusions which are irregularly distributed.
Dunsky (US 6433301 B1) teaches a beam shaping method for forming vias, comprising:
a diffusion unit configured to diffuse a laser which has passed through the light-transmitter, and which is composed at a bottom of the light-transmitter (Column 3 Lines 38-49, a diffractive optical element is used to shape Gaussian irradiance profiles; Figure 7A Column 7 Line 45 – Column 8 Line 19, an aperture mask used to diffuse the laser), and
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH with Dunsky and have a diffractive optical element diffuse the laser which passes through the optical fiber as well as an aperture mask used to diffuse the laser at the focusing portion. This would have been done to obtain a substantially uniform intensity laser spot from its center to its edge so that high quality vias can be drilled rapidly without risk of bottom damage (Dunsky Column 3 Lines 38-49) and to sharpen the edge of the shaped pulses (Dunsky Column 7 Lines 45-47).
OH as modified with Hann fails to teach:
the diffusion unit has a plurality of grooves or a plurality of protrusions which are irregularly distributed.
Kathman (US 6025938 A) teaches a beam homogenizer for a laser system, wherein:
the diffusion unit has a plurality of grooves or a plurality of protrusions which are irregularly distributed (Figure 4 Column 15 Line 45 – Column 16 Line 5, homogenizer 10 comprises an array of facet areas made of irregular pattern of plateaus and vias such to form a uniform spatial power distribution)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH with Kathma and have the diffusion unit comprise a beam homogenizer comprising a plurality of irregularly patterned plateaus. This would have been done to minimize the intensity variations caused by edges or breaks (Kathman Column 10 Line 66 – Column 11 Line 15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights