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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2024, 01/31/2024, 09/03/2025 and 04/15/2026.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 01/03/2024, claims 1-18 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
a support unit configured to support a processing target;
an optical scanning unit configured to scan the processed surface with the laser beam by operating a dielectric mirror to adjust an incident angle of the laser beam with respect to the fθ lens;
a light detection unit configured to detect a return beam of the laser beam from the processed surface of the processing target irradiated with the laser beam
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
a control unit configured to monitor a processing state of the processing target on a basis of the return beam detected by the light detection unit.
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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “support unit” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0108 discloses: “the support unit that supports the processing target 100 is not limited to the stage 3. For example, instead of the stage 3, an arm member or the like configured to hold (sandwich) the side surface of the processing target 100 may be used as the support unit.”
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “optical scanning unit” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0052 discloses: “ in a case where the galvano scanner 5 including the galvano mirror 5 a (dielectric mirror) is used as the optical scanning unit as in the present embodiment”.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “light detection unit” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0042 discloses: “The light detection unit 8A is, for example, a photodiode.”
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “control unit” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0048 discloses: “The control unit 9 can be configured by, for example, a computer device including a processor such as a central processing unit (CPU), a memory such as a random access memory (RAM) or a read only memory (ROM), an auxiliary storage device such as a hard disk drive (HDD) or a solid state drive (SSD), and the like. The control unit 9 is communicably connected to each unit (in the present embodiment, the laser beam source 2, the stage 3, the galvano scanner 5, and the light detection unit 8A) of the laser processing apparatus 1A, and controls the operation of each unit”.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10- 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makoto (JPH1085976A) in view of Lai (US 5612967 A)
Regarding claim 1, Makoto discloses
A laser processing apparatus (see fig.4 and para.001), comprising:
a laser beam source (1, see fig.4) configured to output a laser beam (see fig.4 and para.0043: “1 is a pulse laser oscillator used as an example of a processing light source”);
a support unit (8, see fig.4) configured to support a processing target (10, see fig.4);
an fθ lens (4, see fig.4 and para.0106: “an fθ lens is used as the processing condensing lens 4”) configured to focus the laser beam on a processed surface of the processing target (top surface of 10, see fig.4);
an optical scanning unit (combo 2-3, see fig.4) configured to scan the processed surface (top surface of 10, see fig.4) with the laser beam by operating a dielectric mirror (2 or 3, see fig.4) to adjust an incident angle of the laser beam with respect to the fθ lens (4, see fig.4 and para.0096);
a polarization beam splitter (26, see fig.8 and para.0141) disposed between the laser beam source (1, see fig.4) and the optical scanning unit (combo 2-3, see fig.4) on an optical path of the laser beam (see figs.4 and 8);
a quarter-wave plate (27, see fig.8 and para. 0141) disposed between the polarization beam splitter (26, see fig.8) and the optical scanning unit (combo 2-3, see fig.4) on the optical path (See fig.4,8 and para.0141); and
a light detection unit (6, see fig.4) configured to detect a return beam (15, see fig.4) of the laser beam from the processed surface of the processing target irradiated with the laser beam (See 0ara.0045: “, 6 is a photodetector for detecting reflected laser light from a workpiece to be described later”), the return beam (15, see fig.4) passing through the fθ lens (4, see fig.4), the optical scanning unit (combo 2-3), the quarter-wave plate (37, see fig.8 and para.0141), and the polarization beam splitter (26, see fig.8 and para.0141) in this order.
Makoto discloses the optical scanning unit (combo 2-3, see fig.4) configured to scan the processed surface (top surface of 10, see fig.4) with the laser beam (see para.0049) by operating the mirror (2 or 3, see fig.4) ) to adjust an incident angle of the laser beam with respect to the fθ lens 4, but
Makoto does not expressly disclose the mirror is a dielectric mirror.
However, Lai discloses a laser amplifier system having an optical scanning unit 8 (See fig.1), wherein the optical scanning unit 8 comprising:
a dielectric mirror (34, see fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the optical scanning unit of Makoto to substitute the dielectric mirror of Lai for the mirror of Makoto so as the modification has “an optical scanning unit configured to scan the processed surface with the laser beam by operating a dielectric mirror to adjust an incident angle of the laser beam with respect to the fθ lens” as claimed, since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable result of scanning the top surface of the object.
Regarding claim 2, Makoto further discloses
a control unit (combo 7 and 9, see fig.4) configured to monitor a processing state of the processing target on a basis of the return beam detected by the light detection unit (See para.0055: “The detection signal relating to the light intensity of the reflected laser light 15 detected by the reflected light detector 6 is sent to the arithmetic processing unit 9 for arithmetic processing. The output signal of the arithmetic processing unit 9 is on the other hand laser Feedback is provided to the oscillator 1. On the other hand, it is also sent to the scanning mirror control device 7, and the scanning mirror control device 7 controls the scanning mirrors 2 and 3”).
Regarding claim 3, Makoto further discloses
the light detection unit (6, see fig.4) detects signal strength of the return beam (See para.0055: “The detection signal relating to the light intensity of the reflected laser light 15 detected by the reflected light detector 6 is sent to the arithmetic processing unit 9 for arithmetic processing”), and the control unit detects an abnormality of a processing state of the processing target on a basis of the signal strength detected by the light detection unit (See para.0093: “If it is detected that the increase in the intensity of the reflected laser beam 15 has changed, the arithmetic processing unit 9 instructs the pulse laser oscillator 1 to additionally irradiate at least one pulsed laser beam. Output”).
Regarding claim 4, Makoto further discloses
the control unit (7, see fig.4) corrects the signal strength on a basis of a scanning position of the laser beam (See para.0094: “In this case, while the pulse laser oscillator 1 is additionally irradiating the scanning mirror control device 7, a command not to drive the first scanning mirror 2 and the second scanning mirror 3 is output and the processing is performed”), and detects an abnormality of a processing state of the processing target on a basis of the signal strength after correction (see para.0099: “ If it is detected that the intensity of the reflected laser beam 15 has increased, the arithmetic processing unit 9 stores the position of the hole and transmits at least one pulse laser to the pulse laser oscillator 1. Outputs a command to irradiate additional light”).
Regarding claim 5, Makoto further discloses
the control unit determines whether or not laser processing at a scanning position is normally performed on a basis of the signal strength detected at the scanning position every time the irradiation of the scanning position with the laser beam is executed (See para.0091-0092: “When the intensity of the reflected laser beam 15 detected by the reflected light detector 6 continuously changes, the arithmetic processing unit 9 irradiates the pulse laser oscillator 1 with the next pulse laser beam. Output a simple instruction.[0092] In this case, further, a command not to drive the first scanning mirror 2 and the second scanning mirror 3 is output to the scanning mirror control device 7, and the processing is continued”), and detects an abnormality of a processing state of the processing target (See para.0069) in response to a determination that the laser processing at the scanning position is not normally performed ((See para.0093: “If it is detected that the increase in the intensity of the reflected laser beam 15 has changed, the arithmetic processing unit 9 instructs the pulse laser oscillator 1 to additionally irradiate at least one pulsed laser beam. Output).
Regarding claim 10, Makoto discloses
A laser processing method (see title) for processing a processing target (10, see fig.4) by focusing a laser beam (see fig.4 and para.0043: “1 is a pulse laser oscillator used as an example of a processing light source”)on a processed surface of the processing target (top surface of 10, see fig.4) supported by a support unit (8, see fig.4) with an fθ lens (4, see fig.4 and para.0106: “an fθ lens is used as the processing condensing lens 4”), the laser processing method comprising:
a step of guiding the laser beam output from a laser beam source (1, see fig.4) to an optical scanning unit (combo 2-3, see fig.4) through a polarization beam splitter (26, see fig.8 and para.0141) and a quarter-wave plate (27, see fig.8 and para. 0141) in this order, and scanning, in the optical scanning unit (combo 2-3, see fig.4), the processed surface (top surface of 10, see fig.4) with the laser beam by operating a2 or 3, see fig.4) to change an incident angle of the laser beam with respect to the fθ lens (4, see fig.4 and para.0096); and
a step of detecting, by a light detection unit (6, see fig.4), a return beam (15, see fig.4) of the laser beam from the processed surface of the processing target (top surface of 10, see fig.4) irradiated with the laser beam, the return beam (15, see fig.4) passing through the (fθ lens 4, see fig.4), the optical scanning unit (combo 2-3, see fig.4), the quarter-wave plate (27, see fig.8 and para.0141), and the polarization beam splitter (26, see fig.8 and para.0141) in this order.
Makoto discloses scanning, in the optical scanning unit (combo 2-3, see fig.4), the processed surface (top surface of 10, see fig.4) with the laser beam by operating a2 or 3, see fig.4) to change an incident angle of the laser beam with respect to the fθ lens (4, see fig.4 and para.0096), but
Makoto does not expressly disclose the mirror is a dielectric mirror.
However, Lai discloses a laser amplifier system having an optical scanning unit 8 (See fig.1), wherein the optical scanning unit 8 comprising:
a dielectric mirror (34, see fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the optical scanning unit of Makoto to substitute the dielectric mirror of Lai for the mirror of Makoto so as the modification has “an optical scanning unit configured to scan the processed surface with the laser beam by operating a dielectric mirror to adjust an incident angle of the laser beam with respect to the fθ lens” as claimed, since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable result of scanning the top surface of the object.
Regarding claim 11, Makoto further discloses
The laser processing method according to claim 10, further comprising: a step of monitoring a processing state of the processing target on a basis of the return beam detected by the light detection unit (See para.0055: “The detection signal relating to the light intensity of the reflected laser light 15 detected by the reflected light detector 6 is sent to the arithmetic processing unit 9 for arithmetic processing. The output signal of the arithmetic processing unit 9 is on the other hand laser Feedback is provided to the oscillator 1. On the other hand, it is also sent to the scanning mirror control device 7, and the scanning mirror control device 7 controls the scanning mirrors 2 and 3”).
Regarding claim 12, Makoto further discloses
The laser processing method according to claim 11, wherein in the step of detecting, signal strength of the return beam is detected (See para.0055: “The detection signal relating to the light intensity of the reflected laser light 15 detected by the reflected light detector 6 is sent to the arithmetic processing unit 9 for arithmetic processing”), and in the step of monitoring, an abnormality of a processing state of the processing target is detected on a basis of the detected signal strength (See para.0093: “If it is detected that the increase in the intensity of the reflected laser beam 15 has changed, the arithmetic processing unit 9 instructs the pulse laser oscillator 1 to additionally irradiate at least one pulsed laser beam. Output”).
.
Regarding claim 13, Makoto further discloses
The laser processing method according to claim 12, wherein the step of monitoring includes a process of correcting the signal strength on a basis of a scanning position of the laser beam (See para.0094: “In this case, while the pulse laser oscillator 1 is additionally irradiating the scanning mirror control device 7, a command not to drive the first scanning mirror 2 and the second scanning mirror 3 is output and the processing is performed”), and a process of detecting an abnormality of a processing state of the processing target on a basis of the signal strength after correction (see para.0099: “ If it is detected that the intensity of the reflected laser beam 15 has increased, the arithmetic processing unit 9 stores the position of the hole and transmits at least one pulse laser to the pulse laser oscillator 1. Outputs a command to irradiate additional light”)..
Regarding claim 14, Makoto further discloses
The laser processing method according to claim 12, wherein the step of monitoring includes a step of determining whether or not laser processing at a scanning position is normally performed on a basis of the signal strength detected at the scanning position every time the irradiation of the scanning position with the laser beam is executed (See para.0091-0092: “When the intensity of the reflected laser beam 15 detected by the reflected light detector 6 continuously changes, the arithmetic processing unit 9 irradiates the pulse laser oscillator 1 with the next pulse laser beam. Output a simple instruction.[0092] In this case, further, a command not to drive the first scanning mirror 2 and the second scanning mirror 3 is output to the scanning mirror control device 7, and the processing is continued”), and a step of detecting an abnormality of a processing state of the processing target in response to a determination that the laser processing at the scanning position is not normally performed (See para.0093: “If it is detected that the increase in the intensity of the reflected laser beam 15 has changed, the arithmetic processing unit 9 instructs the pulse laser oscillator 1 to additionally irradiate at least one pulsed laser beam. Output).
Claims 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makoto in view of Lai as applied to claims 2 and 11, respectively, and further in view of Tomoaki (JPH09216087A)
Regarding claim 8, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the light detection unit detects a two-dimensional image of the return beam, and the control unit adjusts a distance between the fθ lens and the processed surface on a basis of the two-dimensional image detected by the light detection unit.
Tomoaki discloses a laser processing apparatus, comprising:
the light detection unit (24/25, see para.0014) detects a two-dimensional image of the return beam (See para.0015: “The image processing device 31 receives the image information captured by the image capturing device 24 from the image capturing device 24 or the television monitor 25”), and the control unit adjusts a distance between the fθ lens and the processed surface on a basis of the two-dimensional image detected by the light detection unit (see para.0029: “the distance between the emitting part and the work piece is finely adjusted based on the observation part that observes the visible light and the image information obtained by the observation part”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the light detection unit of Makoto in view of Lai to “detect a two-dimensional image of the return beam, and the control unit adjusts a distance between the fθ lens and the processed surface on a basis of the two-dimensional image detected by the light detection unit” as taught by Tomoaki. Doing so provides “a laser processing apparatus and a laser processing method capable of observing a processing position simultaneously with laser processing even when the processing position is in an invisible part” (see para.005 of Tomoaki).
Regarding claim 17, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except in the step of detecting, a two-dimensional image of the return beam is detected, and in the step of monitoring, a distance between the fθ lens and the processed surface is adjusted on a basis of the detected two-dimensional image.
Tomoaki discloses a laser processing apparatus, comprising:
in the step of detecting, a two-dimensional image of the return beam is detected (See para.0015: “The image processing device 31 receives the image information captured by the image capturing device 24 from the image capturing device 24 or the television monitor 25”), and in the step of monitoring, a distance between the fθ lens and the processed surface is adjusted on a basis of the detected two-dimensional image (see para.0029: “the distance between the emitting part and the work piece is finely adjusted based on the observation part that observes the visible light and the image information obtained by the observation part”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Makoto in view of Lai to have “the step of detecting, a two-dimensional image of the return beam is detected, and in the step of monitoring, a distance between the fθ lens and the processed surface is adjusted on a basis of the detected two-dimensional image” as taught by . Doing so provides “a laser processing apparatus and a laser processing method capable of observing a processing position simultaneously with laser processing even when the processing position is in an invisible part” (see para.005 of Tomoaki).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 9, 15-16 and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 7580136 B2 discloses a height position detector for detecting the height position of an upper surface of a work, such as a semiconductor wafer, held on a chuck table provided in a machining apparatus such as a laser beam machining apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights