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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima [US 20090263735 A1] in view of Novak [US 6525802 B1].
As per Claim 1, Mishima teaches a laser-processing unit 100 (See fig. 1), comprising:
a scanner configured to scan a laser beam over a mask 2 (Para 31);
a mask stage with a mask table (not shown), said mask stage configured to move said mask table in a main scanning direction and a sub-scanning direction, a mask being mounted on said mask table (See fig. 1, Para 39);
a processing stage with a workpiece table 8, said processing stage configured to move said workpiece table in the main scanning direction and the sub-scanning direction, a workpiece 6 being mounted on said workpiece table (Para 31);
a projection optical system 3 configured to project a pattern beam that passes through said mask 2 onto the workpiece 6 mounted on said workpiece table 8 (See fig. 1);
a mask alignment mechanism 11 configured to detect alignment marks 12 on said mask (Para 38); and
a workpiece alignment mechanism (the OA scope 4) configured to detect alignment marks on said workpiece, said workpiece alignment mechanism being attached to a lens barrel of said projection optical system (Para 41-42).
Mishima does not explicitly show alignment marks on said mask and alignment masks on workpiece.
However, the above elements are commonly used in the art as shown by Novak (See fig. 1, Column 4 lines 45-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate alignment marks as claimed in order to align the reticle with the workpiece more accurately.
As per Claim 4, Mishima in view of Novak teaches the laser-processing unit according to claim 1.
Mishima further disclosed wherein said workpiece alignment mechanism comprises two alignment cameras for a workpiece, said alignment cameras aligned in the sub-scanning direction (Para 44).
As per Claim 7, Mishima in view of Novak teaches the laser-processing unit according to claim 1.
Mishima further disclosed the FRA scope 11 is located movably above the reticle 2, can observe both the reticle 2 and the wafer 6 at a plurality of image points of the projection optical system 3 through the reticle 2 and the projection optical system 3, and can detect a positional shift between the reticle 2 and the wafer 6 (Para 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate alignment system as claimed in order to align the reticle with the workpiece more accurately.
As per Claim 8, Mishima in view of Novak teaches the laser-processing unit according to claim 1.
Mishima further disclosed wherein said processing stage comprises at least one standard mark, the standard mark being located adjacent to said workpiece table and moves with said workpiece table, said mask alignment mechanism and said workpiece alignment mechanism detecting said standard mark independently (Para 40).
As per Claim 9, Mishima in view of Novak teaches the laser-processing unit according to claim 1.
Mishima further disclosed further comprising: a line-beam forming optical unit configured to form a line-shaped laser beam from a laser beam oscillated from a light source; and a scanning mechanism configured to move said line-beam forming optical unit along the main scanning direction (See fig. 1, Para 31).
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima in view of Novak as disclosed above, further in view of Yamaguchi [US 20210003930 A1].
As per Claims 2 and 3, Mishima in view of Novak teaches the laser-processing unit according to claim 1.
Mishima in view of Novak does not explicitly teach wherein said workpiece alignment mechanism comprises a plurality of alignment cameras for a workpiece and a plurality of position-adjustment mechanisms, each position-adjustment mechanism configured to support and control a position of a corresponding alignment camera, said plurality of position-adjustment mechanisms being fixed to said lens barrel.
Yamaguchi teaches the detection apparatus 100 includes a plurality of detectors arranged apart from each other so as to detect different marks of the plurality of marks arranged on the wafer 3. The plurality of detectors include three detectors, that is, a first detector 21a, a second detector 21b, and a third detector 21c. The plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c are arranged at different positions along the X direction. In addition, the detection apparatus 100 includes a plurality of driving mechanisms 22a, 22b, and 22c that hold the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c, respectively, and can drive the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c with respect to a frame 23 in the X direction with a predetermined stroke, respectively (See fig. 1 and 2A, Para 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the plurality of detectors as claimed in order to improve accuracy.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima in view of Novak as disclosed above, further in view of Nishi [US 6198527 B1].
As per Claims 5 and 6, Mishima in view of Novak teaches the laser-processing unit according to claim 1.
Mishima in view of Novak does not explicitly show wherein said workpiece alignment mechanism comprises four alignment cameras for a workpiece, said alignment cameras aligned in the main scanning direction and the sub-scanning direction.
Nishi teaches wherein said workpiece alignment mechanism comprises four alignment cameras for a workpiece, said alignment cameras aligned in the main scanning direction and the sub-scanning direction (See fig. 1, Column 16 line 56 – Column 17 line 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the plurality of detectors as claimed in order to improve accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights