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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “the control unit controls the modulation pattern to be displayed on the spatial light modulator so that a beam shape of the converging spot in a YZ- plane including a Y-direction intersecting the line and the Z-direction” should be “the control unit controls the modulation pattern to be displayed on the spatial light modulator so that a beam shape of the converging spot in a YZ- plane includes a Y-direction intersecting the line and the Z-direction”.
Regarding claim 6, “the laser light is modulated so that a beam shape of the converging spot in a YZ-plane including a Y-direction intersecting the line and the Z-direction” should be “the laser light is modulated so that a beam shape of the converging spot in a YZ-plane includes a Y-direction intersecting the line and the Z-direction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5 are objected based on their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
The term “active region” in claim 4 is interpreted according to the applicant’s definition provided in Paragraph 78 of the applicant’s specification filed 12/20/2023 which states that an “active region is a region including a functional element such as the semiconductor device 11E. In addition, the inactive region is a region that does not include the functional element such as the semiconductor device 11E, or a region that includes an element having a certain function but the element is a test element such as TEG.” As such, the term “active region” interpreted as having the definition of “a region including a functional element”.
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 support unit” in independent claim 1, “a movement unit” in independent claim 1, and “a control unit” in independent claim 1.
Regarding “a support unit” in independent 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. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of a stage (per para. 0017 and fig. 1).
Regarding “a movement unit” in independent 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. A review of the specification and drawing found no specified corresponding structure, thus any structure that would facilitate movement will meet this limitation.
Regarding “a control unit” in independent 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. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of a processor (per para. 0023).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, and the claims depending from this claim are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “movement unit configured to relatively move the converging spot with respect to the object”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically the broad terms “movement unit configured to relatively move the converging spot with respect to the object”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification. The lack of definition of the term “movement unit configured to relatively move the converging spot with respect to the object” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms “movement unit configured to relatively move the converging spot with respect to the object”.
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 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 9 includes the limitations “movement unit configured to relatively move the converging spot with respect to the object” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to move a converging spot with respect to the object. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “movement unit configured to relatively move the converging spot with respect to the object”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the limitation "the line side". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the term “partial portions of the first region and the second region at least on the line side” will be interpreted according to Paragraph 35 of the applicant’s specifications and Figure 5b of the applicant’s drawings filed 12/20/2023 as “partial portions of the first region and the second region adjacent to the line”.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the limitation "the center of the converging spot". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the term “the center of the converging spot” will be interpreted according to Paragraph 42 of the applicant’s specifications and Figure 8a of the applicant’s drawings filed 12/20/2023 as “a horizontal plane in the vertical center of the vertically extending converging spot”.
Claims 2-5 are rejected based on their dependence on one or more of the above 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumitsu (US 20070158314 A1) in view of Nakano (US 20110000897 A1), Kaiser (US 20240017357 A1), and Ioannis D. Chremmos (Bessel-like optical beams with arbitrary trajectories, 2012, Optics Letters, vol. 37, no. 23).
Regarding claim 1, Fukumitsu (US 20070158314 A1) teaches a laser processing apparatus (Figure 14, laser processing apparatus 100), comprising:
a support unit configured to support an object (Figure 14 Paragraph 105, mounting table 107 for mounting the object 1 irradiated with the laser light L);
a light source configured to output laser light (Paragraph 105, laser processing apparatus 100 comprising a laser light source controller 102 for regulating the laser light source 101 to output laser light);
a converging lens configured to converge the laser light toward the object (Figure 14 Paragraph 105, condenser lens 105 for converging the laser light L toward the object 1), and form a converging spot of the laser light in the object (Paragraph 119, laser light L is emitted to a light-converging point P within the substrate 15 of the wafer 1);
a movement unit configured to relatively move the converging spot with respect to the object (Figure 23 Paragraph 138, wafer is moved along the z-axis for forming a plurality of molten processed regions 13; Figure 14 Paragraphs 105-106, z-axis stage 113 for mounting the mount table 107 along the Z axis); and
a control unit configured to control at least the light source, the spatial light modulator, and the movement unit (Paragraph 110, overall controller 127 for controlling the laser processing apparatus as a whole),
PNG
media_image1.png
502
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23; the line along which the converging spot of the laser is moved as well as the first and second regions are indicated; partial portions for the first and second regions are also indicated
wherein the object includes a first surface that becomes an incident surface of the laser light (Figure 23 Paragraph 148, laser light L employing the rear face 21 of the wafer 1a as the laser light entrance surface), a second surface opposite to the first surface (Figure 23 Figure 148, front face 3 which is positioned opposite to the rear face 21), and first and second regions arranged on the second surface (Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23 Paragraph 115, first region to the right of the line along the second surface and second region to the left of the line along the second surface are shown), and a line, along which the converging spot is relatively moved so as to pass between the first region and the second region, is set (Paragraph 138, line of a plurality of molten processed regions are formed within the substrate in the thickness direction between the faces wherein the plurality of molten processed regions are formed by moving the wafer along the z-axis; Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23, said line passes between the first and second regions),
partial portions of the first region and the second region at least on the line side have structures different from each other (Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23, second partial region comprises wiring layers 19a and 19b which first partial region does not comprise either; see 112b rejection above for “the line side”),
the control unit executes first irradiation processing of irradiating the object with the laser light while relatively moving the converging spot along the line in a state in which the converging spot is positioned at a first Z-position on the second surface side in relation to the first surface with respect to a Z-direction intersecting the first surface and the second surface by controlling the light source and the movement unit (Figure 19 Paragraphs 120-126, flow chart for forming the cutting start region 8 in the wafer by moving the Z-axis stage along the Z-axis so that the focus of the laser beam is positioned within the wafer substrate and forming the cutting start region 8; Paragraph 138, line of a plurality of molten processed regions 13 are formed within the substrate in the thickness direction which is formed by moving the wafer along the z-axis and by carrying out seps S111 and S113 of the flow chart shown in Figure 19 a number of times)
Fukumitsu fails to teach:
a spatial light modulator configured to modulate the laser light output from the light source in correspondence with a modulation pattern and output the modulated laser light;
a converging lens configured to converge the laser light output from the spatial light modulator toward the object, and form a converging spot of the laser light in the object;
a control unit configured to control at least the spatial light modulator,
in the first irradiation processing, the control unit controls the modulation pattern to be displayed on the spatial light modulator so that a beam shape of the converging spot in a YZ- plane including a Y-direction intersecting the line and the Z-direction, and the Z-direction becomes an inclined shape that is inclined with respect to the Z-direction on at least the first surface side in relation to the center of the converging spot.
Nakano (US 20110000897 A1) teaches a laser working method, comprising:
a spatial light modulator configured to modulate the laser light output from the light source in correspondence with a modulation pattern and output the modulated laser light (Paragraph 97, controller 205 controls the reflection type spatial light modulator 203 by inputting a wavefront shaping pattern such that the aberration of the laser light L converged inside the object becomes a predetermined aberration or less);
a converging lens configured to converge the laser light output from the spatial light modulator toward the object, and form a converging spot of the laser light in the object (Paragraph 98, a converging optical system 204 converges the laser light L emitted from the reflection type spatial light modulator 203 inside the object 1);
a control unit configured to control at least the spatial light modulator (Paragraph 97, controller 205 controls the reflection type spatial light modulator 203 by inputting a wavefront shaping pattern such that the aberration of the laser light L converged inside the object becomes a predetermined aberration or less),
in the first irradiation processing, the control unit controls the modulation pattern to be displayed on the spatial light modulator so that a beam shape (Paragraph 96, spatial light modulator 203 is used to shape the laser light)
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 Fukumitsu with Nakano and have the laser processing apparatus comprise a spatial light modulator for adjusting the beam shape. This would have been done to ensure that the aberration of the laser light converged inside the object is equal to or less than a predetermined aberration such that the energy density of the laser light at that position is enhanced and thus a modified region with a high function is formed (Nakano Paragraphs 7-8).
Fukumitsu modified with Nakano fails to teach:
in the first irradiation processing, the control unit controls the modulation pattern to be displayed on the spatial light modulator so that a beam shape of the converging spot in a YZ- plane including a Y-direction intersecting the line and the Z-direction, and the Z-direction becomes an inclined shape that is inclined with respect to the Z-direction on at least the first surface side in relation to the center of the converging spot.
Kaiser (US 20240017357 A1) teaches an apparatus and method for laser machining a workpiece, wherein:
in the first irradiation processing, the control unit controls so that a beam shape of the converging spot in a YZ- plane including a Y-direction intersecting the line and the Z-direction, and the Z-direction becomes an inclined shape that is inclined with respect to the Z-direction on at least the first surface side in relation to the center of the converging spot (see 112b rejection above for “the center of the converging spot; Figure 4b Paragraphs 181-183, focal distribution of the beam shaping element 130 can be provide in a curved inclined shape comprising both an x-direction intersecting a vertically extending direction and a z-direction which is an inclined shaped inclined with respect to the vertically extending direction; x-direction in the prior art can reasonably be interpreted as the y-direction of the claim; Figure 4b, top of focal distribution is inclined with respect to the center of the focal distribution as can be seen by the top of longitudinal center axis 140, which inclines back toward the left, of the focal distribution 124).
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 Fukumitsu with Kaiser and have the geometry of focal distributions be adaptable and include at least a beam shape of the converging spot which consists of a y-direction and z-direction as specified. This would have been done to facilitate a flexible and multifaceted use of the apparatus (Kaiser Paragraph 45).
While Fukumitsu modified with Kaiser does not explicitly teach that “in the first irradiation processing, the control unit controls the modulation pattern to be displayed on the spatial light modulator so that a beam shape of the converging spot in a YZ- plane including a Y-direction intersecting the line and the Z-direction”, Paragraphs 181-182 of Kaiser refer to the scientific publication of “Bessel-like optical beams with arbitrary trajectories” by Ioannis D. Chremmos (Bessel-like optical beams with arbitrary trajectories, 2012, Optics Letters, vol. 37, no. 23) for the formation and properties of quasi-nondiffractive and/or Bessel-like beams with curved shapes which would facilitate the formation of a curved focal distribution within the workpiece. Page 5005 of Ioannis teaches that implementation of generating Bessel-like optical beams with arbitrary trajectories can be straightforwardly implemented by phase-modulating a simple optical wavefront via a spatial light modulator. As such, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the modulation pattern of a spatial light modulator so that “in the first irradiation processing, the control unit controls the modulation pattern to be displayed on the spatial light modulator so that a beam shape of the converging spot in a YZ- plane including a Y-direction intersecting the line and the Z-direction”.
The Office further notes that the use of a spatial light modulator to generate a curved focal arc within a workpiece is well known in the art as evidenced by Ungaro (US 20210001430 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Fukumitsu as modified teaches the laser processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
wherein the control unit executes second irradiation processing of irradiating the object with the laser light while relatively moving the converging spot along the line in a state in which the converging spot is positioned at a second Z-position that is further spaced apart from the second surface in comparison to the first Z-position in the Z-direction by controlling the light source, the spatial light modulator, and the movement unit (Figure 19 Paragraphs 120-126, flow charge for forming the cutting start region 8 in the wafer by moving the Z-axis stage along the Z-axis so that the focus of the laser beam is positioned within the wafer substrate and forming the cutting start region 8; Paragraph 138, line of a plurality of molten processed regions 13 are formed within the substrate in the thickness direction which is formed by moving the wafer along the z-axis and by carrying out seps S111 and S113 of the flow chart shown in Figure 19 are carried out a number of times)
Nakano further teaches:
wherein the control unit executes second irradiation processing of irradiating the object with the laser light while relatively moving the converging spot along the line in a state in which the converging spot is positioned at a second Z-position that is further spaced apart from the second surface in comparison to the first Z-position in the Z-direction by controlling the light source, the spatial light modulator, and the movement unit (Paragraph 90, moving the case and/or laser engine up and down according to the depth of the object such as to change a position of the converging optical system to converge the laser light L on a desired depth position of the object; Paragraph 154, numerical aperture of the laser light converged inside the object is made to be relatively smaller to form the modified region 7.sub.2 along the line 5), and in the second irradiation processing, the control unit sets the beam shape of the converging spot in the YZ-plane to a non-inclined shape along the Z-direction through control of the spatial light modulator (Figure 22 Paragraph 156, modified region 7.sub.2, above a modified region 7.sub.1, is made to a modified region which has an elongated shape in the thickness direction of the object 1; Kaiser Figure 3 Paragraphs 169-171, shape of the focal distribution 124 can alternatively extend in a vertical direction and non-inclined shape along the z-direction).
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 Fukumitsu with Nakano and have a second irradiation process wherein a spatial light modulator is used to set the beam shape of the converging spot to a non-inclined and elongated shape along the z-direction. This would have been done such that the modified region is relatively longer the thickness direction of the object than the other regions formed, such as to decrease the number of scans necessary along the line (Nakano Paragraph 156).
Regarding claim 3, Fukumitsu as modified teaches the laser processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the first region and the second region are semiconductor devices (Paragraph 115, substrate 15 made of a semiconductor with a laminated layer 4; Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23 each of the first and second region comprises part of the substrate 15), respectively, the second region is provided with a wiring portion at the partial portion (Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23 Paragraph 115, partial portion of the second region comprises wiring layers 19a and 19b), and
in the first irradiation processing, the control unit controls the modulation pattern to be displayed on the spatial light modulator so that the beam shape of the converging spot in the YZ- plane becomes a shape that is inclined from the second region toward the first region as going from the first surface to the second surface on at least the first surface side in relation to the center of the converging spot (see 112b rejection above for “the center of the converging spot; Kaiser Figure 4b Paragraphs 181-183, focal distribution of the beam shaping element 130 is formed in a shape which is inclined from a left to right side when viewing from a downwards direction from a front surface to a back surface on a first surface side in relation to the center of the converging spot; Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23, second portion is formed on the left side and the first portion is formed on the right side; thus the beam shaping element 130 would be formed as shape inclined from the second portion toward the first portion as going from the first surface to the second surface; the Office further notes that under a different interpretation of Fukumitsu Figure 23, what constitutes the first and second region can reasonably be interpreted as having swapped positions to those of Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23).
Regarding claim 4, Fukumitsu as modified teaches the laser processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the second region is an active region (see claim interpretation above for “active region”; Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23 Paragraph 115, second region comprises a wiring layer 19a and wiring layer 19b which can be reasonably interpreted as a functional layer are formed on a plurality of device forming regions set to be separated from one another; Paragraph 135, functional devices can be formed between the devices forming regions in memories),
the first region is a region different from the active region (Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23 Paragraph 115, first region comprises part of the distance separating the functional layers which does not comprise a wiring layer 19a nor a wiring layer 19b), and
in the first irradiation processing, the control unit controls the modulation pattern to be displayed on the spatial light modulator so that the beam shape of the converging spot in the YZ- plane becomes a shape that is inclined from the second region toward the first region as going from the first surface to the second surface on at least the first surface side in relation to the center of the converging spot (see 112b rejection above for “the center of the converging spot; Kaiser Figure 4b Paragraphs 181-183, focal distribution of the beam shaping element 130 is formed in a shape which is inclined from a left to right side when viewing from a downwards direction from a front surface to a back surface on a first surface side in relation to the center of the converging spot; Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23, second portion is formed on the left side and the first portion is formed on the right side; thus the beam shaping element 130 would be formed as shape inclined from the second portion toward the first portion as going from the first surface to the second surface; the Office further notes that under a different interpretation of Fukumitsu Figure 23, what constitutes the first and second region can reasonably be interpreted as having swapped positions to those of Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumitsu (US 20070158314 A1) in view of Nakano (US 20110000897 A1), Kaiser (US 20240017357 A1), and Ioannis D. Chremmos (Bessel-like optical beams with arbitrary trajectories, 2012, Optics Letters, vol. 37, no. 23) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of J. Houzet (Ultrafast laser spatial beam shaping based on Zernike polynomials for surface processing, 2016, Optics Express, Vol. 24, Issue 6, pp. 6542-6552).
Regarding claim 5, Fukumitsu as modified teaches the laser processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Nakano further teaches:
the modulation pattern (Paragraph 97, controller 205 controls the reflection type spatial light modulator 203 by inputting a wavefront shaping pattern such that the aberration of the laser light L converged inside the object becomes a predetermined aberration or less)
Ioannis further teaches:
in the first irradiation processing, the control unit sets the beam shape to the inclined shape by using the spatial light modulator (Page 5005, implementation of generating Bessel-like optical beams with arbitrary trajectories can be straightforwardly implemented by phase-modulating a simple optical wavefront via a spatial light modulator)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Fukumitsu as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the modulation pattern includes a coma aberration pattern configured to apply coma aberration to the laser light, and
in the first irradiation processing, the control unit sets the beam shape to the inclined shape by controlling the coma aberration with the coma aberration pattern.
J. Houzet (Ultrafast laser spatial beam shaping based on Zernike polynomials for surface processing, 2016, Optics Express, Vol. 24, Issue 6, pp. 6542-6552) teaches an ultrafast laser spatial beam shaping based on Zernike polynomials, wherein:
the modulation pattern includes a coma aberration pattern configured to apply coma aberration to the laser light (Page 6549, spatially shaped beam is obtained by applying coma in both the y and x directions; Pages 6551-6552, Zernike polynomials including coma are addressed with a spatial light modulator and are used to modulate the spatial phase of a beam such as to adjust the beam shape), and
in the first irradiation processing, the control unit sets the beam shape by controlling the coma aberration with the coma aberration pattern (Page 6549, spatially shaped beam is obtained by applying coma in both the y and x directions; Pages 6551-6552, Zernike polynomials including coma are addressed with a spatial light modulator and are used to modulate the spatial phase of a beam such as to adjust the beam 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 Fukumitsu with J. Houzet and have control unit set the beam shape by controlling Zernike polynomials which include coma variables. This would have been done to generate the spatially set beam with the desired profile (J. Houzet Page 6549).
The Office further notes that the generation of modulation patterns for spatial light modulators by adjusting Zernike coefficients is well known in the art as evidenced by NOMURA (US 20210146482 A1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumitsu (US 20070158314 A1) in view of Kaiser (US 20240017357 A1) and Ioannis D. Chremmos (Bessel-like optical beams with arbitrary trajectories, 2012, Optics Letters, vol. 37, no. 23).
Regarding claim 6, Fukumitsu (US 20070158314 A1) teaches a laser processing method of irradiating an object (Figure 14, laser processing apparatus 100) includes a first surface (Figure 23 Paragraph 148, laser light L employing the rear face 21 of the wafer 1a as the laser light entrance surface), a second surface opposite to the first surface (Figure 23 Figure 148, front face 3 which is positioned opposite to the rear face 21), and first and second regions arranged along the second surface (Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23 Paragraph 115, first region to the right of the line along the second surface and second region to the left of the line along the second surface are shown) and in which a line is set to pass between the first region and the second region, with laser light (Paragraph 138, line of a plurality of molten processed regions are formed within the substrate in the thickness direction between the faces wherein the plurality of molten processed regions are formed by moving the wafer along the z-axis; Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23, said line passes between the first and second regions), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
502
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23; the line along which the converging spot of the laser is moved as well as the first and second regions are indicated; partial portions for the first and second regions are also indicated
a first irradiation process of irradiating the object with the laser light while relatively moving a converging spot along the line in a state in which the converging spot of the laser light is positioned at a first Z-position on the second surface side in relation to the first surface with respect to a Z-direction intersecting the first surface and the second surface (Figure 19 Paragraphs 120-126, flow chart for forming the cutting start region 8 in the wafer by moving the Z-axis stage along the Z-axis so that the focus of the laser beam is positioned within the wafer substrate and forming the cutting start region 8; Paragraph 138, line of a plurality of molten processed regions 13 are formed within the substrate in the thickness direction which is formed by moving the wafer along the z-axis and by carrying out seps S111 and S113 of the flow chart shown in Figure 19 a number of times),
wherein partial portions of the first region and the second region at least on the line side have structures different from each other (Fukumitsu Annotated Figure 23, second partial region comprises wiring layers 19a and 19b which first partial region does not comprise either; see 112b rejection above for “the line side”),
Fukumitsu fails to teach:
and in the first irradiation process, the laser light is modulated so that a beam shape of the converging spot in a YZ-plane including a Y-direction intersecting the line and the Z-direction, and the Z-direction becomes an inclined shape that is inclined with respect to the Z-direction on at least the first surface side in relation to the center of the converging spot.
Kaiser (US 20240017357 A1) teaches an apparatus and method for laser machining a workpiece, wherein:
and in the first irradiation process, the laser light is shaped so that a beam shape of the converging spot in a YZ-plane including a Y-direction intersecting the line and the Z-direction, and the Z-direction becomes an inclined shape that is inclined with respect to the Z-direction on at least the first surface side in relation to the center of the converging spot (see 112b rejection above for “the center of the converging spot; Figure 4b Paragraphs 181-183, focal distribution of the beam shaping element 130 can be provide in a curved inclined shape comprising both an x-direction intersecting a vertically extending direction and a z-direction which is an inclined shaped inclined with respect to the vertically extending direction; x-direction in the prior art can reasonably be interpreted as the y-direction of the claim; Figure 4b, top of focal distribution is inclined with respect to the center of the focal distribution as can be seen by the top of longitudinal center axis 140, which inclines back toward the left, of the focal distribution 124).
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 Fukumitsu with Kaiser and have the geometry of focal distributions be adaptable and include at least a beam shape of the converging spot which consists of a y-direction and z-direction as specified. This would have been done to facilitate a flexible and multifaceted use of the apparatus (Kaiser Paragraph 45).
While Fukumitsu modified with Kaiser does not explicitly teach that “the laser light is modulated”, Paragraphs 181-182 of Kaiser refer to the scientific publication of “Bessel-like optical beams with arbitrary trajectories” by Ioannis D. Chremmos (Bessel-like optical beams with arbitrary trajectories, 2012, Optics Letters, vol. 37, no. 23) for the formation and properties of quasi-nondiffractive and/or Bessel-like beams with curved shapes which would facilitate the formation of a curved focal distribution within the workpiece. Page 5005 of Ioannis teaches that implementation of generating Bessel-like optical beams with arbitrary trajectories can be straightforwardly implemented by phase-modulating a simple optical wavefront via a spatial light modulator. As such, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the modulation pattern of a spatial light modulator so that “the laser light is modulated”.
The Office further notes that the use of a spatial light modulator to generate a curved focal arc within a workpiece is well known in the art as evidenced by Ungaro (US 20210001430 A1).
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