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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with PCT Tule 11.13(l) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: “120” in Fig. 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character in the description are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet.” If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract begins with the phrase “The invention relates to,” which is an implied phrase that should be avoided. Additionally, the abstract uses legal/claim-drafting terminology, such as “comprising”, “comprises” rather than narrative language. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “said laser writing comprised irradiating” in line 6 which should read “said laser writing comprises irradiating.”
Claim 4 recites “pre pulse” in line 2 which should read “pre-pulse” for consistent hyphenation.
Claim 5 recites “pre pulse” in line 2 which should read “pre-pulse” for consistent hyphenation.
Claim 5 recites “the laser main-pulse” in line 2 which is inconsistent terminology as the term “the main laser pulse” is used in claims 1, 3, 4, and 6. For consistency, the examiner suggests changing “the laser main-pulse” into “the main laser pulse.”
Claim 7 recites “wherein it includes” in line 2 which the examiner suggests changing to read “wherein the method further comprises.”
Claim 7 recites “by thermal process” in line 2 which should read “by a thermal process.”
Claim 9 recites “Silico” in line 2 which should read “Silicon”.
Claim 10 recites “has level of light intensity” in line 3 which should read “has a level of light intensity.”
Claim 10 recites “1x1O 11 and 5x10 13” in line 1 which should read “1x1011 and 5x1013”.
Claim 13 recites “with a at least one laser pre-pulse” in lines 3-4 which contains a redundance article and should read “with at least one laser pre-pulse.”
Claim 13 recites “configured to irradiating said material” in line 6 should read “configured to irradiate said material.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The 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.
Claim 13 contains the limitation(s) “means configured for laser writing in volume of the semiconductor material” and “means configured for irradiating the semiconductor material with at least one laser pre-pulse” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. These claims limitations are a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
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 only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the term “means configured for laser writing in volume of the semiconductor material” in claim 13, the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the recited function of laser writing is: writing head 30 in combination with laser light source 20 (p. 8, lns. 9-11; p. 8, lns. 17-27).
Regarding the term “means configured for irradiating the semiconductor material with at least one laser pre-pulse” in claim 13, the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the recited function of irradiating with at least one laser pre-pulse is: laser light source 20 in combination with external optical arrangement 50 (p. 8, lns. 9-11; p. 8, lns. 17-22; p. 9, lns. 11-13).
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 add sufficient structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function such that it is not necessary to resort to the specification to determine the structure, material, or acts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “said single laser-emitting source” in lines 1-2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 depends from claim 7, which in turn depends from claim 1. The term “a single laser-emitting source” is introduced only in claim 6, which is a separate claim depending directly from claim 1, and is not in claim 8’s chain of dependency. As such, it is unclear what structure “said single laser-emitting source” is intended to refer to, rendering the metes and bounds of claim 8 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “a single laser-emitting source.”
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for irradiating the semiconductor material with at least one laser pre-pulse configured to change transiently and at least locally a refractive index or permittivity of the semiconductor material, does not reasonably provide enablement for irradiating the semiconductor material with at least one laser pre-pulse configured to change transiently and at least locally a mechanical strength, chemical etching rate, or electrical or thermal conductivity of the semiconductor material. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim 1 recites “irradiating the semiconductor material with at least one laser pre-pulse configured to change transiently and at least locally at least one property of the semiconductor material” in lines 3-5. Claim 13 recites substantially the same limitation in means-plus-function form. Claims 11-12 depend from claim 1 and therefore incorporate the same scope.
Determination of whether undue experimentation would be required is made in view of the factors set out in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988):
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: the specification discloses a specific physical mechanism—plasma formation via an intense, short pre-pulse inducing a transient refractive index (or permittivity) change (p. 4, lns. 22-29; p. 11, lns. 11-14; p. 14, lns. 3-17)—as the basis for the claimed pre-conditioning effect. No experimental data, working examples, or mechanistic guidance is provided showing that this same mechanism, or any mechanism, would transiently alter mechanical strength, chemical etching rate, or electrical/thermal conductivity. A person having ordinary skill in the art would need to independently discover and develop an entirely different physical phenomenon to achieve a transient change in these properties, which constitutes undue experimentation. See MPEP 2164.01(a)(H).
The existence of working examples: all working examples (p. 11, ln. 23-p. 12, ln. 27) and experimental results (Figs. 5 & 7) are directed to exclusively to transient refractive index change in Silicon via plasma formation. There is no working example directed to any other recited property. See MPEP 2164.01(a)(G).
The amount of direction provided by the inventor: the specification provides no guidance to how the claimed pre-pulse parameters (intensity, pulse width, timing) would be configured to achieve a transient change in mechanical strength, chemical etching rate, or electrical/thermal conductivity, distinct from the refractive-index-directed guidance provided throughout (p. 11, ln. 15-p. 14, ln. 27). See MPEP 2164.01(a)(F).
The nature of invention: the invention’s operative principle—a transient plasma-induced state enabling hyper-localization of the main laser pulse (p. 4, lns. 22-26)—is described exclusively in terms of its effect on the material’s refractive index/permittivity (p. 14, lns. 3-27). The specification does not establish that this same operative principle extends to, or has any bearing on, the other recited properties. See 2164.01(a)(B).
The state of the prior art: the art of laser-induced modification of semiconductor properties is unpredictable in that a mechanism enabling transient change of one property (refractive index, via free-carrier plasma generation) cannot be presumed, absent evidence, to be transferable to mechanically, chemically, or electrically distinct properties without a showing of the underlying physical relationship. See MPEP 2164.01(a)(C).
The breadth of the claims: claim 1 (and claims 11-13) by dependence/incorporation) is not limited to refractive index or optically-related properties, but broadly recites “at least one property,” reading on any of the seven properties enumerated in p. 3, lns. 3-5. See MPEP 2164.01(a)(A).
In light of Wands factors, the scope of enablement provided by the specification is limited to a transient and local change of refractive index (and, by reasonable extension, optically-related properties such as birefringence and nonlinear susceptibility, which share the same underlying free-carrier/plasma mechanism). The specification does not enable the full scope of “at least one property” as claimed, specifically as it reads on mechanical strength, chemical etching rate, and electrical and thermal conductivity.
Appropriate correction is required. The Applicant can overcome this rejection by amending the claim to recite: “irradiating the semiconductor material with at least one laser pre-pulse configured to change transiently and at least locally a refractive index of the semiconductor material.”
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grojo et al. (FR-3053155-B1) hereinafter Grojo, in view of Yamamoto et al. (US-20050218122-A1) hereinafter Yamamoto, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US-20150049376-A1) hereinafter Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 1, Grojo discloses a method (Grojo (translation), p. 4, ln. 3: “method”) for optical writing in a semiconductor material (Grojo (translation), p. 4, ln. 3: “semiconductor material”) (Grojo (translation), p. 4, lns. 3-4: “methods and systems for optical functionalization in depth of a sample made of semiconductor material, including in particular the three-dimensional recording of optical waveguides deep in the sample”), the method (“method”) comprising
laser writing in volume (Grojo (translation), p. 4, lns. 3-4; p. 3, lns. 20-21: “At the output of the emission source 20, the laser beam 203 is thus formed of pulses with effective durations of between 1 µs and 100 ns, whether they are single pulses or ultra-short pulse detectors. duration of a pulse train being between 1 ps and 100 ns,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the claimed laser writing in volume) of the semiconductor material (“semiconductor material”), and
said laser writing comprised irradiating said material by means of a main laser pulse to form a laser inscription at a given point in volume of the semiconductor material (Grojo (translation), p. 8, lns. 27-29: “the focussing volume of the laser beam travels one or more simple lines and / or with branches, making it possible to form "channels" with a positive index change; the optical elements [thus produced] are simple waveguides or couplers type”; p. 8, lns. 32-33: “an irradiation can be repeated in one point, the change of index then spontaneously takes a biconvex form (the form of focal [spot]) and thus forms a microlens element,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that irradiating the semiconductor material by means of a main laser pulse (the disclosed irradiation of the focused laser beam within the sample) forms a laser inscription (the disclosed permanent change of the real part of the refractive index, manifested as a waveguide, coupler, or microlens element) at a given point in volume of the semiconductor material (the disclosed repetition of irradiation “in one point” within the focusing volume of the laser beam, resulting in a localized index change at that point)).
Grojo does not explicitly disclose
the method comprising, prior to said laser writing, irradiating the semiconductor material with at least one laser pre-pulse configured to change transiently and at least locally at least one property of the semiconductor material,
a predetermined time elapsing between the laser pre-pulse and laser writing,
the method being characterized in that the at least one laser pre-pulse and the main laser pulse are configured such that:
the at least one laser pre-pulse is of light intensity higher than the main laser pulse;
the at least one laser pre-pulse is of pulse width lower than the main laser pulse;
the at least one laser pre-pulse and the main laser pulse are separated by said predetermined time;
the at least one laser pre-pulse being configured to form an Airy light spot focused in the volume of the semiconductor material.
However, Yamamoto discloses a method for laser machining of material using a burst comprised of laser pulses (abstract), the method comprising,
prior to said laser writing, irradiating the semiconductor material with at least one laser pre-pulse configured to change transiently and at least locally at least one property of the semiconductor material (¶ [0056]: “First, an ultrafast pulse near the threshold of ablation causes breakdown at the interface. This pulse changes the absorption characteristics at the point that heat needs to be deposited”; ¶ [0072]: “The next pulse has to arrive before any change of material (thermal or physical) caused by the prior pulse disappears,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the property change induced by the pre-pulse is transient in nature),
a predetermined time elapsing between the laser pre-pulse and laser writing (¶ [0063]: “The relationship of the multiple pulses is characterized by pulse width, peak power and separation time between pulses”; ¶ [0074]: “optimum separation can be expressed in terms of the pulse width of the long pulse. Optimum range of separation time t.sub.s is between -1.0.times.pw.sub.1 and +2.0.times.pw.sub.1, where pw.sub.1 is the pulse width of the long pulse,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the claimed predetermined time),
the method being characterized in that the at least one laser pre-pulse and the main laser pulse are configured such that:
the at least one laser pre-pulse is of light intensity higher than the main laser pulse (¶ [0067]: “The peak power of long pulse is less than that of the short pulse to avoid damage to the surrounding area by the long pulse,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the claimed pre-pulse, corresponding to the short pulse, having an intensity higher than the main pulse, corresponding to the long pulse);
the at least one laser pre-pulse is of pulse width lower than the main laser pulse (¶ [0031]: “The first pulse width is generally in the nanosecond range, and the second pulse width is generally in the picosecond to femtosecond range,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the claimed pre-pulse, corresponding to the second, shorter pulse, having a pulse width lower than the main pulse, corresponding to the first, longer pulse); and
the at least one laser pre-pulse and the main laser pulse are separated by said predetermined time (¶¶ [0063], [0074]).
Grojo and Yamamoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing of semiconductor material using a pulsed laser beam to modify the material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Grojo to include a pre-pulse preceding the main laser pulse, the pre-pulse configured with a higher light intensity and lower pulse width than the main laser pulse and separated therefrom by a predetermined time, as taught by Yamamoto, in order to change a property of the semiconductor material so as to influence the interaction of the main laser pulse with the material (Yamamoto, ¶ [0067]: “The peak power of long pulse is less than that of the short pulse to avoid damage to the surrounding area by the long pulse”; ¶ [0056]: “First, an ultrafast pulse near the threshold of ablation causes breakdown at the interface. This pulse changes the absorption characteristics at the point that heat needs to be deposited. Next, a long pulse is used to deposit heat at the interface where welding is desired”), thereby improving the precision and control of the material modification.
Regarding claim 1, Grojo in view of Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the at least one laser pre-pulse being configured to form an Airy light spot focused in the volume of the semiconductor material.
However, Matsumoto discloses, in Fig. 1, a beam shaping device (10A) where in at least one laser pre-pulse being configured to form an Airy light spot (¶ [0039]: “in the case where an intensity distribution of light incident into a lens is a uniform top-hat shape, an Airy pattern appears in a condensed light spot,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the claimed Airy light spot), focused in the volume of the semiconductor material (¶ [0039]: “such specially-shaped condensed light spots may be useful for the purposes of laser processing, laser microscopes, and the like,” which the examiner interprets as evidencing the applicability of the disclosed Airy-pattern beam shaping to focused laser processing of a material).
Grojo, Yamamoto and Matsumoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser beam processing apparatus and methods employing a laser beam focused by optics onto a target material to modify the material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the pre-pulse of the combined Grojo and Yamamoto method to be focused so as to form an Airy light spot, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to shape the intensity distribution of the pre-pulse at the focal spot (Matsumoto, ¶ [0039]: “in the case where an intensity distribution of light incident into a lens is a uniform top-hat shape, an Airy pattern appears in a condensed light spot”), thereby further controlling the special characteristics of the property change induced by the pre-pulse in the semiconductor material.
PNG
media_image1.png
333
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Matsumoto
Regarding claim 2, Grojo in view of Yamamoto and Matsumoto discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one laser pre-pulse and the main laser pulse are configured to be both focused at said given point (Yamamoto, ¶ [0056]: “First, an ultrafast pulse near the threshold of ablation causes breakdown at the interface. This pulse changes the absorption characteristics at the point that heat needs to be deposited. Next, a long pulse is used to deposit heat at the interface where welding is desired,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the first pulse (corresponding to the pre-pulse) and the second, long pulse (corresponding to the main pulse) act at the same location, namely the interface/point where heat is to be deposited; further supported by ¶ [0031]: “The burst of laser light comprises a first pulse and a second pulse of laser light displaced in time,” and ¶ [0062]: “the temporal arrangement of multi-pulses is depicted, where only two separated pulses that comprise a burst are illustrated,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the first pulse and second pulse, being components of a single burst of laser light delivered along a common beam path to a target area, are inherently focused at the same location).
Regarding claim 3, Grojo in view of Yamamoto and Matsumoto discloses the method (Grojo: “method”) according to claim 1, wherein
the main laser pulse (Yamamoto, ¶ [0056]: “long pulse”) is configured to be focused at said given point and the at least one laser pre-pulse (Yamamoto, ¶ [0056]: “ultrafast pulse”) is configured to be focused at a zone that enables a pre-focal region of the material, induced by the at least one laser pre-pulse (Yamamoto: “ultrafast pulse”), to coincide with said given point (Yamamoto, ¶ [0056]: “First, an ultrafast pulse near the threshold of ablation causes breakdown at the interface. This pulse changes the absorption characteristics at the point that heat needs to be deposited. Next, a long pulse is used to deposit heat at the interface where welding is desired. The ultrafast pulse causes this process to become deterministic and precise at each point along the weld line,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the points along the weld line where the absorption characteristics are changed by the ultrafast pulse correspond to the pre-focal region of the material formed by the laser pre-pulse, and the point at the interface where welding is desired by the long pulse corresponds to said given point focused by the main laser pulse, which coincides with the pre-focal region).
Regarding claim 4, Grojo in view of Yamamoto and Matsumoto discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one laser pre pulse and the main laser pulse are composed from two different laser pulses (Yamamoto, ¶ [0031]: ““The burst of laser light comprises a first pulse and a second pulse of laser light displaced in time”; ¶ [0062]: “the temporal arrangement of multi-pulses is depicted, where only two separated pulses that comprise a burst are illustrated,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the pre-pulse, corresponding to the first pulse, and the main laser pulse, corresponding to the second pulse, are composed from two different laser pulses).
Regarding claim 5, Grojo in view of Yamamoto and Matsumoto discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one laser pre pulse and the laser main-pulse are two components of one single, temporally shaped, laser signal (Yamamoto, ¶ [0027]: “a portion of the long pulse follows after the ultrafast pulse, and adding a pedestal on the short pulse can create the long pulse”; ¶ [0029]: “a pedestal of an ultrashort pulse is controlled. The pedestal is similar to a superimposed long-pulse with lower amplitude,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a single laser signal, temporally shaped to include a short, high-intensity pulse (corresponding to the pre-pulse) and a superimposed longer-duration pedestal of lower amplitude (corresponding to the main laser pulse), as two components of one continuous, temporally-shaped signal).
Regarding claim 6, Grojo in view of Yamamoto and Matsumoto discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a single laser-emitting source is used for generating both the laser pre-pulse and the main laser pulse (Yamamoto, ¶ [0035]: “The first pulse emitted by the laser apparatus has a first pulse width and the second pulse emitted by the laser apparatus has a second pulse width,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that a single laser apparatus generates both the first pulse, corresponding to the pre-pulse, and the second pulse, corresponding to the main laser pulse; further supported by ¶ [0029]: “ASE is often emitted simultaneously and co-linearly with the ultrashort pulse from an amplified fiber laser,” evidencing that a single laser source is capable of generating both a short, high-intensity pulse and an associated lower-intensity pulse component).
Regarding claim 9, Grojo in view of Yamamoto and Matsumoto discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the semiconductor material is Silicon (Grojo (translation), p. 11, ln. 35: “a direct deep laser inscription optical functionalization in a silicon sample,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the claimed semiconductor material being Silicon).
Regarding clam 10, Grojo, Yamamoto and Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein: the laser pre-pulse has level of light intensity between 1×1011 and 5×1013 W/cm2 at focus, a pulse width between 50 and 5000 fs, a pulse energy between 20 and 1000 nJ, the predetermined time is lower than 200 ps.
However, Yamamoto discloses the method for laser machining of material using a burst comprised of laser pulses according to claim 1, wherein pulse energy (pe), pulse width (pw), as well as separation time (ts) between pre-pulse and main pulse are established, as shown in Fig. 2A. While recognizing pe, pw and ts as result-effective variables, Yamamoto further discloses “tailor[ing] the pulse width, pulse separation duration, wavelength and polarization [is] to maximize the positive effect of thermal and physical changes achieved by the previous pulse on the laser matter interaction in a burst-machining mode” in order to achieve “[b]etter processing results... by manipulating the pulse width, the pulse separation duration and the pulse energies of pulses within a burst.” Yamamoto, ¶ [0028].
Yamamoto discloses a pulse energy range of “between 0.0001 microjoules and 10 microjoules” (¶ [0067]), which is between 0.1 and 10,000 nJ, encompassing the claimed 20-1000 nJ range.
Yamamoto discloses a specific pulse width example of “a 100 femtosecond pulse” (¶ [0026]), falling within the claimed range of 50-5000 fs.
Regarding the predetermined time, Yamamoto discloses that “separation time is measured as a positive value from the center of the long pulse as a delay time after the long pulse” (¶ [0063]), such that a negative separation time corresponds to the short pulse (pre-pulse) preceding the long pulse (main pulse), consistent with the temporal order disclosed at ¶ [0056]. Yamamoto discloses “[o]ptimum range of separation time t.sub.s is between -1.0.times.pw.sub.1 and +2.0.times.pw.sub.1” (¶ [0074]), the negative portion of which discloses a predetermined time during which the pre-pulse precedes the main laser pulse; for a disclosed long-pulse width pw1 of 3.0 nanoseconds (¶ [0067]), this negative portion corresponds to separation times between 0 and -3.0 nanoseconds, which overlaps the claimed range of a predetermined time lower than 200 ps. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the result-effective variables of light intensity, pulse width, pulse energy, and predetermined time, including through routine experimentation, to arrive at the specific claimed ranges, because Yamamoto expressly identifies pulse width, pulse separation duration, and pulse energy as parameters that must be manipulated to achieve a desired result in the material processing outcome. Yamamoto, ¶ [0028]. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B).
Regarding the light intensity, Yamamoto discloses fluence rather than intensity directly, disclosing “The threshold for ablation of gold is a little over 0.3 J/cm.sup.2 for the 100 femtosecond pulse” (¶ [0024]). A person of ordinary skill in the art, dividing the disclosed fluence by the disclosed pulse width of the same 100 femtosecond pulse, would calculate a corresponding light intensity of approximately 3x1012 W/cm2 (= 0.3 J/cm2 ÷ 100x10-15 s), falling within the claimed range of 1×1011 to 5×1013 W/cm2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed range of light intensity through routine experimentation, since light intensity is derivable from the fluence and pulse width parameters disclosed by Yamamoto, and discovering the optimum or workable value of such a variable through routine experimentation is normally within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claim 11, Grojo in view of Yamamoto and Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose a computer program product characterized in that it includes program code instructions for implementing the method according to claim 1, when said program is executed by a processor.
However, Grojo discloses, in Fig. 1, a laser marking system (100) comprising a control unit (60) that is “connected to one and / or the other of the modules 21-23 [pulsed laser source 21, pulse shaping module 22, energy control module 23] forming the emission source 20 for controlling the laser parameters (repetition rate, pulse duration, wavelength , beam geometry, impulse energy, polarization, spatial shape of the beam)” (Grojo (translation), p. 9, lns. 5-7), implementing an iterative control algorithm whereby the number of pulses received per point of the pattern is incremented and irradiation repeated until a target relative variation of the refractive index is achieved (Grojo (translation), p. 11, lns. 15-18: “the method comprises iterative steps of controlling the number of pulses received. by point of the pattern, each step being defined by obtaining a predefined value of the relative variation of the real part of the refractive index, for example the minimum detectable. The steps are continued until the relative variation Δη / η of the real part of the desired refractive index is obtained”).
The examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement Grojo’s disclosed control unit (60) using program code instructions executed by a processor, because an iterative control logic of the type disclosed by Grojo, whereby a parameter is measured, compared to a threshold, and incremented in a repeated control loop, is well-known, routine, and conventional to be carried out by program code instructions executed by a processor. See MPEP 2144.03.
PNG
media_image2.png
408
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Grojo
The examiner also takes the position that claim 11 qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101 because even though claim 11 is directed to a “computer program product,” claim 11 is directed to the method of claim 1, which “makes it possible to improve the accuracy and controllability of the laser-writing process,” as described in the specification of the Instant Application (evaluation according to Step 2A, Prong two, MPEP 2106.04.d.1).
Regarding claim 12, Grojo in view of Yamamoto and Matsumoto does not explicitly discloses a non-transitory computer-readable carrier medium storing the computer program product according to claim 11.
However, the examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to store the program code instructions of the computer program product of claim 11 on a non-transitory computer-readable carrier medium, because storing program code instructions to be executed by a processor on a non-transitory storage medium, as opposed to a transitory propagating signal, is well-known, routine, and conventional, and is the standard implementation for program code intended for execution by a processor as disclosed by Grojo’s control unit (60). See MPEP 2144.03.
Regarding claim 13, Grojo discloses, in Fig. 1, a device (100, “laser marking system”) for optical writing in a semiconductor material (10, “sample”) (Grojo (translation), p. 8, ln. 1: “a laser marking system 100 for deep optical functionalization in a sample 10 of semiconductor material”), the device (100) comprising
means (20, “emission source”) configured for laser writing in volume (Grojo (translation), p. 3., lns. 33-34: “The laser beam is focused in the sample 10 by a focusing system 40, for example a microscope objective whose numerical aperture defines the size of the focusing volume”; p. 4, lns. 3-4; p. 3, lns. 20-21: “At the output of the emission source 20, the laser beam 203 is thus formed of pulses with effective durations of between 1 µs and 100 ns, whether they are single pulses or ultra-short pulse detectors. duration of a pulse train being between 1 ps and 100 ns,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the claimed laser writing in volume) of the semiconductor material (10), and
said laser writing means (20) being configured to irradiating said material via a main laser pulse to form a laser inscription at a given point in volume of the semiconductor material (Grojo (translation), p. 8, lns. 27-29: “the focussing volume of the laser beam travels one or more simple lines and / or with branches, making it possible to form "channels" with a positive index change; the optical elements [thus produced] are simple waveguides or couplers type”; p. 8, lns. 32-33: “an irradiation can be repeated in one point, the change of index then spontaneously takes a biconvex form (the form of focal [spot]) and thus forms a microlens element,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that irradiating the semiconductor material by means of a main laser pulse (the disclosed irradiation of the focused laser beam within the sample) forms a laser inscription (the disclosed permanent change of the real part of the refractive index, manifested as a waveguide, coupler, or microlens element) at a given point in volume of the semiconductor material (the disclosed repetition of irradiation “in one point” within the focusing volume of the laser beam, resulting in a localized index change at that point)).
Grojo does not explicitly disclose
means configured for irradiating the semiconductor material with a at least one laser pre-pulse to change transiently and at least locally at least one property of the semiconductor material,
a predetermined time elapsing between activation of the irradiating means and laser writing means,
the device being characterized in that said laser writing means and irradiating means are configured such that:
the at least one laser pre-pulse is of light intensity higher than the main laser pulse;
the at least one laser pre-pulse is of pulse width lower than the main laser pulse;
the at least one laser pre-pulse and the main laser pulse are separated by said predetermined time;
the at least one laser pre-pulse forms an Airy light spot focused in the volume of the semiconductor material.
However, Yamamoto discloses a laser apparatus (¶ [0035])
means (¶ [0035]: “laser apparatus”) configured for irradiating the semiconductor material with a at least one laser pre-pulse (¶ [0035]: “a laser apparatus that applies bursts of laser light to a target area of a material at a predetermined repetition rate”) to change transiently and at least locally at least one property of the semiconductor material (¶ [0056]: “First, an ultrafast pulse near the threshold of ablation causes breakdown at the interface. This pulse changes the absorption characteristics at the point that heat needs to be deposited”; ¶ [0072]: “The next pulse has to arrive before any change of material (thermal or physical) caused by the prior pulse disappears,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the property change induced by the pre-pulse is transient in nature),
a predetermined time elapsing between activation of the irradiating means and laser writing means (¶ [0063]: “The relationship of the multiple pulses is characterized by pulse width, peak power and separation time between pulses”; ¶ [0074]: “optimum separation can be expressed in terms of the pulse width of the long pulse. Optimum range of separation time t.sub.s is between -1.0.times.pw.sub.1 and +2.0.times.pw.sub.1, where pw.sub.1 is the pulse width of the long pulse,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the claimed predetermined time),
the device being characterized in that said laser writing means and irradiating means are configured such that:
the at least one laser pre-pulse is of light intensity higher than the main laser pulse (¶ [0067]: “The peak power of long pulse is less than that of the short pulse to avoid damage to the surrounding area by the long pulse,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the claimed pre-pulse, corresponding to the short pulse, having an intensity higher than the main pulse, corresponding to the long pulse);
the at least one laser pre-pulse is of pulse width lower than the main laser pulse (¶ [0031]: “The first pulse width is generally in the nanosecond range, and the second pulse width is generally in the picosecond to femtosecond range,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the claimed pre-pulse, corresponding to the second, shorter pulse, having a pulse width lower than the main pulse, corresponding to the first, longer pulse); and
the at least one laser pre-pulse and the main laser pulse are separated by said predetermined time (¶¶ [0063], [0074]).
Grojo and Yamamoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing of semiconductor material using a pulsed laser beam to modify the material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Grojo to include a pre-pulse preceding the main laser pulse, the pre-pulse configured with a higher light intensity and lower pulse width than the main laser pulse and separated therefrom by a predetermined time, as taught by Yamamoto, in order to change a property of the semiconductor material so as to influence the interaction of the main laser pulse with the material (Yamamoto, ¶ [0067]: “The peak power of long pulse is less than that of the short pulse to avoid damage to the surrounding area by the long pulse”; ¶ [0056]: “First, an ultrafast pulse near the threshold of ablation causes breakdown at the interface. This pulse changes the absorption characteristics at the point that heat needs to be deposited. Next, a long pulse is used to deposit heat at the interface where welding is desired”), thereby improving the precision and control of the material modification.
Regarding claim 13, Grojo in view of Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the at least one laser pre-pulse forms an Airy light spot focused in the volume of the semiconductor material.
However, Matsumoto discloses, in Fig. 1, a beam shaping device (10A) where in at least one laser pre-pulse forms an Airy light spot (¶ [0039]: “in the case where an intensity distribution of light incident into a lens is a uniform top-hat shape, an Airy pattern appears in a condensed light spot,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the claimed Airy light spot), focused in the volume of the semiconductor material (¶ [0039]: “such specially-shaped condensed light spots may be useful for the purposes of laser processing, laser microscopes, and the like,” which the examiner interprets as evidencing the applicability of the disclosed Airy-pattern beam shaping to focused laser processing of a material).
Grojo, Yamamoto and Matsumoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser beam processing apparatus and methods employing a laser beam focused by optics onto a target material to modify the material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the pre-pulse of the combined Grojo and Yamamoto method to be focused so as to form an Airy light spot, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to shape the intensity distribution of the pre-pulse at the focal spot (Matsumoto, ¶ [0039]: “in the case where an intensity distribution of light incident into a lens is a uniform top-hat shape, an Airy pattern appears in a condensed light spot”), thereby further controlling the special characteristics of the property change induced by the pre-pulse in the semiconductor material.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grojo et al. (FR 1655979) hereinafter Grojo, in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20050218122) hereinafter Yamamoto, Matsumoto et al. (US 20150049376) hereinafter Matsumoto, Gu et al. (US 20060000814) hereinafter Gu, and further in view of Qiao et al. (US 20210053160) hereinafter Qiao.
Regarding claim 7, Grojo in view of Yamamoto and Matsumoto discloses the method (Grojo: “method”) according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein it includes laser erasing by thermal process at least one laser inscription formed in the semiconductor material, the thermal process being carried out by laser irradiation of said at least one laser inscription configured with respect to a melting point of the semiconductor material.
However, Gu discloses a laser-based method for processing targeted surface material (abstract), wherein
it includes laser erasing by thermal process at least one laser inscription formed in the semiconductor material (¶ [0027]: “The textured surface material may include indicia, and the indicia may be erased during the step of irradiating with the secondary laser output”; ¶ [0202]: “In certain applications it may also be of interest to remove or erase a previously-formed, laser mark. The formation of highly-absorbing, microtextured regions provides for such capability because the region may be controllably modified using the secondary laser system configured with appropriate laser parameters”),
the thermal process being carried out by laser irradiation of said at least one laser inscription (¶ [0230]: “A highly absorbing marked area may be irradiated for subsequent processing”; ¶ [0233]: “The secondary laser energy is absorbed by the microtexture. The microtexture is heated and the increased temperature is sufficient to cause a phase change in the material,” which the examiner interprets as teaching laser erasing by a thermal process of a previously-formed laser inscription).
Grojo, Yamamoto, Matsumoto and Gu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing of semiconductor material using a pulsed laser beam to modify the material. Gu, ¶ [0003]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Grojo in combination with Yamamoto and Matsumoto to further comprise erasing the at least one laser inscription by a thermal process, as taught by Gu, for the purpose of applying Gu’s known technique of controllably removing a laser-formed feature by thermally-induced phase change to the laser inscription of the method of Grojo, Yamamoto and Matsumoto (Gu, ¶ [0202]), so as to permit the previously-formed laser inscription to be controllably removed or modified using the secondary laser system.
Regarding claim 7, Grojo in view of Yamamoto, Matsumoto and Guo does not explicitly teach that the laser irradiation is configured with respect to a melting point of the semiconductor material.
However, Qiao discloses laser irradiation of a semiconductor material configured with respect to a melting point of the semiconductor material (¶ [0049]: “The surface temperature of the material in relation to the melting temperature can also be determined by physical modeling. When the surface temperature exceeds the melting temperature, the time duration that the temperature stays above the melting temperature can be determined”; ¶ [0059]: “for silicon, when operating the laser at a fluence near the ablation threshold... the maximum temperature is less than the melting temperature of silicon”; ¶ [0083]: “The TTM [(Two Temperature Model)] predicts surface temperatures not to exceed the silicon melting temperature of 1687 K,” which the examiner interprets as teaching laser irradiation of a semiconductor material configured with respect to a melting point of the semiconductor material).
Grojo, Yamamoto, Matsumoto, Gu and Qiao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing of semiconductor material using a pulsed laser beam to modify the material. Qiao, ¶ [0050]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the thermal erasing process of the method taught by Grojo in combination with Yamamoto, Matsumoto and Gu to be configured with respect to a melting point of the semiconductor material, as taught by Qiao, for the purpose of minimizing the thermal impact on the semiconductor material during the erasing process (Qiao, ¶ [0046]: “avoiding significant thermal melting and large heat-affected zones, as these affect the structural integrity... of the laser-processed surface”; ¶ [0049]: “The laser parameters can be optimized to minimize the thermal impact on the material”), so as to allow the thermal energy delivered to the previously-formed laser inscription during the erasing process of Gu to be precisely controlled relative to the melting point of the semiconductor material, thereby minimizing unwanted thermal damage to the semiconductor material surrounding the laser inscription being erased.
Regarding claim 8, Grojo in view of Yamamoto, Matsumoto, Gu and Qiao discloses the method (Grojo: “method”) according to claim 7, wherein said single laser-emitting source is also used for the laser erasing (Gu, Fig. 2; ¶ [0195]: “the two laser systems 100, 129 having beam paths 104, 122 may be included in separate systems, or the optical systems may be combined by various well-known methods into a single laser system... A single laser head may produce the beams of the laser sources 102 and 120, or there may be two laser sources,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the single laser source used for laser writing may also be used for the laser erasing).
PNG
media_image3.png
138
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Gu
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vázquez-Córdova et al. (US-10615044-B1), Gu et al. (US-20070199927-A1), Glezer (US-5761111-A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights