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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-19, drawn to “A method for laser processing wafer surface”, classified in B23K26/0622.
II. Claims 20-30, drawn to “A laser processing system for wafer surface”, classified in B23K26/352.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Groups II and I are related as apparatus and a process for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand; for example, an apparatus comprising a carrying device that is used for carrying the laser.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with Floyd Canfield on 10/22/2025, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of “A method for laser processing wafer surface”, claims 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 20-30 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 cites the method “according to claim 4, wherein the fluence of the laser apparatus is greater than or equal to a minimum fluence threshold”.
This ‘minimum fluence threshold’ is understood by the Examiner from the instant specification to be the lowest fluence that is able to perform effective laser processing, modifying the wafer surface [0064].
Although the instant specification also discloses “the minimum fluence integration threshold is greater than or equal to zero” [0060], the threshold is understood to be a number greater than zero, as the threshold will vary based on the wafer material, because for each material type there is a critical energy density, at which the material is not removed, that must be overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8 & 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (KR20000072884A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A method for laser processing wafer surface, comprising following steps of: Step A: providing a wafer; Step B: performing profile scanning a top surface of the wafer by a scanning device to obtain a profile distribution of the top surface of the wafer; and Step C: performing laser processing on the wafer from the top surface of the wafer by a laser apparatus with a fluence integration distribution to form a laser-processed wafer, wherein the fluence integration distribution is related to the profile distribution of the top surface of the wafer.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Park teaches a method for laser processing wafer surface, comprising following steps of: Step A: providing a wafer [P. 1, last ¶; P. 6, ¶ 1]; Step B: performing profile scanning a top surface of the wafer by a scanning device to obtain a profile distribution of the top surface of the wafer [P. 2, last ¶]; and Step C: performing laser processing on the wafer from the top surface of the wafer [P. 2, last ¶] by a laser apparatus with a fluence integration distribution [P. 2, ¶ 5] to form a laser-processed wafer, wherein the fluence integration distribution is related to the profile distribution of the top surface of the wafer [P. 5, Ex. 3]. Park teaches the energy density and focal length of the pulsing laser are in relation to the elevations of the wafer (diamond film) surface [P. 2, ¶ 5; P. 5, Ex. 3].
2. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 1, wherein the fluence integration distribution and the profile distribution meet one of the following conditions: (1) the first condition: where the profile distribution is higher, the fluence integration distribution is approximately higher, (2) the second condition: the profile distribution has a maximum value and a minimum value, a difference of the maximum value and the minimum value is defined as a high-low range of the profile distribution, a difference of the profile distribution and the minimum value is defined as a normalized profile distribution, a ratio of the normalized profile distribution to the high-low range is defined as a normalized-profile proportion distribution, wherein the fluence integration distribution is approximately proportional to the normalized-profile proportion distribution, (3) the third condition: where the profile distribution is smaller than or equal to a minimum height threshold, the fluence integration distribution is approximately equal to a minimum fluence integration threshold, wherein the minimum fluence integration threshold is greater than or equal to zero, (4) the fourth condition: where the profile distribution is smaller than or equal to a minimum height threshold, the fluence integration distribution is approximately equal to a minimum fluence integration threshold, wherein the minimum fluence integration threshold is greater than or equal to zero; while the profile distribution is greater than the minimum height threshold, where the profile distribution is higher, the fluence integration distribution is approximately higher, (5) the fifth condition: where the profile distribution is higher, the fluence integration distribution is approximately lower, and (6) the sixth condition: the profile distribution has a maximum value and a minimum value, a difference of the maximum value and the minimum value is defined as a high-low range of the profile distribution, a difference of the profile distribution and the minimum value is defined as a normalized profile distribution, a ratio of the normalized profile distribution to the high-low range is defined as a normalized-profile proportion distribution, wherein the fluence integration distribution is approximately inversely proportional to the normalized-profile proportion distribution.
With respect to claim 2, Park teaches the fluence integration distribution and the profile distribution meet one of the following conditions: (1) the first condition: where the profile distribution is higher, the fluence integration distribution is approximately higher. Park teaches that “If the laser is focused on the highest part 14 of the surface and then the entire surface is scanned with the laser beam, the higher part is located closer to the laser focus and the laser energy density is higher, thus removing material by the laser” [P. 2, last ¶].
3. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 2, wherein the fluence integration distribution is capable of being controlled by controlling at least one of a laser pulse integration distribution and a fluence of the laser apparatus.
With respect to claim 3, Park teaches the fluence integration distribution is capable of being controlled by controlling the fluence of the laser apparatus [P. 2, ¶ 5].
4. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 1, wherein the fluence integration distribution is capable of being controlled by controlling at least one of a laser pulse integration distribution and a fluence of the laser apparatus.
With respect to claim 4, Park teaches the fluence integration distribution is capable of being controlled by controlling the fluence of the laser apparatus [P. 2, ¶ 5].
5. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 4, wherein the laser pulse integration distribution is capable of being controlled by controlling at least one of an overlapping rate of a plurality of laser pulses generated by the laser apparatus along a laser processing path direction and an overlapping rate of the plurality of laser pulses generated by the laser apparatus along a separation direction of two adjacent laser processing paths.
With respect to claim 5, Park teaches the laser pulse integration distribution is capable of being controlled by controlling at least one of an overlapping rate of a plurality of laser pulses generated by the laser apparatus along a laser processing path direction and an overlapping rate of the plurality of laser pulses generated by the laser apparatus along a separation direction of two adjacent laser processing paths.
In Example 1, Park teaches a laser beam process focused to a 40µm diameter and pulsed eight times, then relative movement of the laser/wafer along a path by 5µm, and the laser beam process is repeated [P. 4, Ex. 1]. This shows an overlapping rate of a plurality of laser pulses generated by the laser apparatus along a laser processing path direction.
8. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 4, wherein the fluence of the laser apparatus is capable of being controlled by controlling at least one of a pulse repetition rate of the laser apparatus, a power of the laser apparatus and a spot area of a laser pulse generated by the laser apparatus on a focal plane of the laser pulse.
With respect to claim 8, Park teaches an example wherein the fluence of the laser apparatus is capable of being controlled by controlling the pulse repetition rate of the laser apparatus [P. 4, Ex. 1 – 16kHz], a power of the laser apparatus [P. 4, Ex. 1 – 0.625 mJ pulse energy] and a spot area of a laser pulse generated by the laser apparatus on a focal plane of the laser pulse [P. 4, Ex. 1 – focal spot diameter of about 40µm].
14. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 1, wherein after the Step C, the method further comprises a following step of: polishing a top surface of the laser-processed wafer.
With respect to claim 14, Park teaches after the Step C (wherein the surface of the material is flattened by scanning a laser beam), the method further comprises a following step of: polishing a top surface of the laser-processed wafer [P. 5-6, “Advantageous-Effects”].
15. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 1, wherein in the Step C, at least one portion of the wafer adjacent to the top surface of the wafer is removed, such that the wafer is at least partially planarized.
With respect to claim 15, Park teaches in the Step C, at least one portion of the wafer adjacent to the top surface of the wafer is removed, such that the wafer is at least partially planarized (See Figs. 4A to 4E; [P. 3-4, See “Process steps 1-7”]).
16. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 15, wherein the at least one portion of the wafer been removed is where the profile distribution of the top surface of the wafer is higher.
With respect to claim 16, Park teaches the at least one portion of the wafer been removed is where the profile distribution of the top surface of the wafer is higher (See Figs. 4A to 4B).
17. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 1, wherein in the Step C, a portion of the wafer adjacent to the top surface of the wafer is removed, such that the wafer is globally planarized.
With respect to claim 17, Park teaches in the Step C, a portion of the wafer adjacent to the top surface of the wafer is removed, such that the wafer is globally planarized. Park teaches layers can be removed in repeated steps (See Figs. 4B to 4C; [P. 3-4, See “Process steps 1-7”]).
18. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 1, wherein the laser apparatus is at least one of a diode pumped solid state laser apparatus, a gas laser apparatus, a semiconductor laser apparatus and a fiber laser apparatus.
With respect to claim 18, Park teaches a copper vapor laser [P. 4, Ex. 1], which is a gas laser.
19. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 1, wherein the wafer is made of at least one material selected from the group consisting of: SiC, Ga2O3, sapphire, InP, GaAs, diamond, GaN, GaP, quartz, Si, AlN, InAs, SiGe, germanium and ceramic.
With respect to claim 19, Park teaches a diamond wafer.
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 non-obviousness.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR20000072884A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Park (KR20000072884A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
6. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 4, wherein the fluence of the laser apparatus is greater than or equal to a minimum fluence threshold.
With respect to claim 6, Park teaches the fluence of the laser apparatus is greater than or equal to a minimum fluence threshold. Park teaches “the rate at which material is removed by the laser… depends on the energy density of the laser. In general, the higher the energy density, the faster the removal rate. And for each material there is a critical energy density, at which the material is not removed [P. 2, ¶ 5]”.
As set forth in the ‘Claim Interpretations’ section, the lowest fluence value where material can be modified/removed from the wafer surface is understood by the Examiner to be the ‘minimum fluence threshold’. Park teaches this threshold will be different for each wafer material [P. 2, ¶ 5].
7. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 6, wherein the minimum fluence threshold is at least related to a wavelength of the laser apparatus and a material that the wafer is made of.
With respect to claim 7, as set forth in the rejection of claim 6, Park teaches the minimum fluence threshold is at least related to a ‘energy density’ of the laser apparatus and a material that the wafer is made of [P. 2, ¶ 5].
Energy density is known to be energy delivered to an area over a given time. It is commonly known that the energy of a laser is determined by the energy of photons and their wavelength. While other factors also affect energy density (e.g., pulse time, number of pulses, laser focal spot area), it would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the laser wavelength affects energy density, and thus, is related to the fluence threshold.
Park teaches “the laser used in the present invention uses a pulse laser so as to be suitable for processing diamond, the wavelength is 1100 nm or less, the pulse energy is 50µJ or more, and the number of repetitions is 0.1 Hz or more [P. 3, ¶ 3]”.
Claims 9 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR20000072884A), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Kuwabara (JPH08187588A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
9. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 1, wherein before the Step C, the method further comprises a following step of: coating an assisted modifying layer on the top surface of the wafer.
With respect to claim 9, Park is silent on coating an assisted modifying layer on the top surface of the wafer before the Step C.
However, in a related field of art, the prior art of Kuwabara teaches before the pulse laser machining of a workpiece surface, coating a modifying polyimide layer by spin coating onto the top surface to allow for laser processing the wafer surface through the polyimide film, while preventing debris generated from the laser machining process to adhere to the workpiece surface [0009-0010, P. 5, ¶ 4].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to apply the known technique of coating a modifying polyimide film onto the wafer top surface to prevent machining debris from adhering to the wafer, taught by Kuwabara, to the laser machining process of Park to predictably improve the process by preventing debris generated from the laser machining process to adhere to the wafer surface.
10. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 9, wherein the assisted modifying layer is made of at least one material selected from the group consisting of: (1) a mixture of a solution containing metal ions, an oxidant and a buffer, (2) an alkaline solution or colloid, and (3) at least one of a sol-gel containing at least one metal and a sol-gel containing an oxide of the at least one metal.
With respect to claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 9, Park, in view of Kuwabara, teaches an assisted modifying layer of a polyimide film. Kuwabara teaches the polyimide film can be formed from a solution comprising polyimide dissolved in a commonly used organic solvent, NMP [P. 5, ¶ 4].
The NMP solvent taught by Kuwabara would be commonly known by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be a polar alkaline solvent, with a pH ~10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR20000072884A), in view of Kuwabara (JPH08187588A), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 10, and further in view of Lee (KR20090111005A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
12. The method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 10, wherein the assisted modifying layer is made of the alkaline solution or colloid, wherein the alkaline solution or colloid is made of at least one material selected from the group consisting of: potassium hydroxide and ammonia.
With respect to claim 12, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10, Park, in view of Kuwabara, teaches an assisted modifying layer of a polyimide film, formed from a solution comprising polyimide dissolved in a commonly used alkaline organic solvent, NMP.
Park, in view of Kuwabara, is silent on other types of assisted modifying layers made of alkaline solutions or colloids.
However, in a related field, the prior art of Lee teaches an assisted modifying layer for laser processing of a substrate surface, wherein an alkaline assist gas solution of KOH is applied to modify the material surface and reduces dust generation during the laser cutting process [P. 2, ¶ 2].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the alkaline KOH surface modifier for laser processing on a substrate, taught by Lee, in place of the NMP solvent in the surface modifying solution taught by Park, in view of Kuwabara. As Lee teaches the KOH application produces surface modification and reduces debris during laser processing, the substitution of alkaline solvent type from NMP to KOH would be expected to produce a similar result in the surface modifying solution taught by Park, in view of Kuwabara.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 & 13 are 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.
Regarding claim 11, no prior art was found to modify Park, in view of Kuwabara, to teach the method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 10, wherein the assisted modifying layer is made of the mixture of the solution containing metal ions, the oxidant and the buffer; wherein the solution containing metal ions is made of at least one material selected from the group consisting of: a solution of Ag3+ ions and a solution of Cu2+ ions; wherein the oxidant is hydrogen peroxide; wherein the buffer is glacial acetic acid.
Regarding claim 13, no prior art was found to modify Park, in view of Kuwabara, to teach the method for laser processing wafer surface according to claim 10, wherein the assisted modifying layer is made of at least one of the sol-gel containing the at least one metal and the sol-gel containing the oxide of the at least one metal, wherein the at least one metal is at least one of Al, B, Ga and In, wherein the oxide of the at least one metal is at least one of aluminum oxide, boron oxide, gallium oxide and indium oxide.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure – Bestenlehrer (US6043452A); [Col. 3, line 48 – Col. 4, line 43], (Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
