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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 11-17-2025 RCE was received. The 10-31-2025 Amendment was entered. Claims 1, 11, and 13 were amended. Claims 2 and 8 were cancelled. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-18 are pending and examined in this action.
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.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re Claim 13, “wherein the laser beam is caused to branch into at least laser beams,” is indefinite. It is unclear what the scope of this part of Claim 13 requires. As best understood, the claim requires at least two laser beams. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0160708 to Hinohara in view of US 10,562,130 to Donofrio et al., JP 2013049161 A, and US 2012/0319249 to Uchida.
In re Claim 1, Hinohara teaches a silicon substrate manufacturing method for manufacturing a silicon substrate from a silicon ingot in which a first crystal plane is made to be a flat surface (see Fig. 4a, ingot #50 with face #52), the silicon substrate manufacturing method comprising:
a separation band forming step of forming a separation band (see Fig. 4B, #70) through positioning a focal point of a laser beam (see Fig. 4A-B,”LB;” see also Para. 0032-33), with a wavelength having transmissibility with respect to silicon to a depth equivalent to a thickness of the silicon substrate to be manufactured from the flat surface (see Figs. 4a-b, #70) and irradiating the silicon ingot with the laser beam while relatively moving the focal point and the silicon ingot in a direction parallel to or orthogonal to an intersection line at which the first crystal plane and a second crystal plane intersect (see Fig. 4a lines #70 are parallel to an adjacent line that passes through the ingot);
an indexing feed step of executing indexing feed, by a predetermined index distance between 100 µm and 320 µm (see Para. 0033, teaching and indexing amount of between 250 µm and 400 µm – see MPEP 2144,05, I), of the focal point and the silicon ingot relatively in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the separation band is formed (see Figs. 4a-b, and Para. 0033 teaching index feeding the chuck table relative to the focal point); and
a wafer manufacturing step of executing the separation band forming step (see e.g., Fig. 5A-B) and the indexing feed step at least twice to form a separation layer parallel to the first crystal plane as a whole inside the silicon ingot and separating the silicon substrate from the silicon ingot at the separation layer to manufacture the silicon substrate (see e.g., Para. 0002 and Para 0033 teaching the peel-off layer forming processing and the indexing feeding are alternately repeated).
Hinohara does not explicitly teach wherein the laser beam is caused to branch into a plurality of laser beams in a direction of the indexing feed to form respective focal points, and wherein an interval between the focal points of the branches pulsed laser beams is between 5 µm and 15 µm.
Additionally, Hinohara does not teach wherein a rectangular orientation flat is formed in a circumferential surface of the silicone substrate, and wherein the rectangular orientation flat is positioned to form an angle with respect to the intersection line of 45 degrees and the indexing feed which is either parallel to or orthogonal to the intersection line which forms the angle with respect to the rectangular orientation flat of 45 degrees.
However, Donofrio teaches that it is known in the art to use a plurality of laser beams (see Donofrio, Col. 34, ll. 27-42), which states:
In certain embodiments, multiple regions of one substrate may be processed simultaneously to form subsurface laser damage in multiple substrate regions, and/or multiple substrates may be arranged within a single tool for simultaneous or substantially simultaneous laser processing, to enhance tool throughput. In certain embodiments, an output beam of one laser may be split into multiple beams using one or more beam splitters, individual beams of the beams may either be supplied to different substrates or different areas of a single substrate, to form subsurface laser damage therein utilizing methods disclosed herein. In certain embodiments, multiple lasers may be used to simultaneously supply beams to multiple substrates or multiple areas of a single substrate, to form subsurface laser damage therein utilizing methods disclosed herein (emphasis added).
The Examiner notes that each of the “split” beams taught by Donofrio would form separate focal points in the workpiece.
In the same field of invention, lasers used to indicate a crack for future separation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to split the output beam of one laser into multiple beams using a beam splitter, as taught by Donofrio (see Donofrio, Col. 34, ll. 27-42) in order enhance tool throughput (Donofrio, Col. 34, ll. 28-33). Furthermore, doing so is a duplication of the essential working parts for a multiplied effect which is obvious unless there is a synergistic effect. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis CO., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977). Here, splitting a single laser beam into multiple laser beams would have been within the level of ordinary skill in order to increase the productivity (as taught by Donofrio). More laser beams equals less time needed to complete the cracks, which would process the workpieces quicker.
Further, JP 2013049161 A teaches that it is known in the art to separate the first point of a laser application and the second point of a laser application between 1 and 10 µm (see JP 2013049161 A, which states: the pitch of the irradiation point LP nearest other irradiation point LP of the one and the irradiation point LP of one of the laser beam L c of the hexagonal SiC crystal 10 and the (range of 1μm or less, for example 10μm) PT predetermined pitch to extend along the surface.”). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate the irradiation point of modified Hinohara between 1-10 µm, as taught by JP 2013049161 A. Doing so is combining prior art elements (dimensions between laser points) according to known methods or calculation to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so improves the throughput of cutting the workpiece (see JP 2013049161 A, Abstract).
Additionally, Uchida teaches that it is known in the art to provide a rectangular orientation flat formed in a circumferential surface of the silicone substrate (see Uchida, Fig. 9, #1a), and wherein the rectangular orientation flat is positioned to form an angle with respect to the intersection line of 45 degrees (see Uchida, Fig. 9, grid which is at an angle) and the indexing feed which is either parallel to or orthogonal to the intersection line which forms the angle with respect to the rectangular orientation flat of 45 degrees (see Uchida, Para. 0113-0118 and Figs. 9a-b).
In the same field of invention, semiconductor wafers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, at the earliest effective filing date to provide a rectangular orientation flat formed in a circumferential surface of the silicone substrate, and wherein the rectangular orientation flat is positioned to form an angle with respect to the intersection line of 45 degrees, as taught by Uchida. Doing so would provide a semiconductor chip that reduces cracks and provides high reliability (see Uchida, Para. 0041-42).
Such a combination would provide for the indexing feed which is either parallel to or orthogonal to the intersection line which forms the angle with respect to the rectangular orientation flat of 45 degrees (see modified Hinohara in view of Uchida, Fig. 9a/b).
Additionally, the combination would provide for a broken region, aligned along the direction of the indexing feed, in the ingot defined by the focal points and the spaces between. In other words, the broken region was interpreted as a region defined by focal points and spaced between the focal points. The Examiner notes that each of the “split” beams taught by Donofrio would form separate focal points in the workpiece with spaced between.
The Examiner notes that the range taught by Hinohara overlaps the range claim (see Hinohara, Para. 0033). As such, because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
In re Claim 5, modified Hinohara, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the interval between the focal points of the branched pulsed lasers beams is 10 µm (JP 2013049161 A teaches between 1-10 µm).
In re Claim 7, modified Hinohara, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the plurality of laser beams consists of five laser beams, as Donofrio teaches “multiple beams.” (See Donofrio, Col. 34, ll. 27-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize any reasonable number of lasers since it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts for a multiplied effect is obvious unless there is a synergistic effect. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis CO., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977). Here, for example, two lasers would be more efficient (the machine would process workpieces quicker) that a single laser, and four lasers would be more efficient that two lasers, etc. It would have been obvious to one to utilize any reasonable number of lasers, including 5, in order to process the workpiece in an efficient manner. The Examiner notes that Applicant fails to provide evidence of criticality of five beams, as opposed to two to four beams or six or more beams.
In re Claim 9, modified Hinohara, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the plurality of branched laser beams are positioned to a same depth within the silicon substrate (see Donofrio, abstract teaches forming subsurface laser damage at a first average depth position and a subsequent average depth positions).
In re Claim 10, modified Hinohara, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the first crystal plane is a crystal plane {100} and the second crystal plane is a crystal plane {111} – modified Hinohara teaches a plane at the top surface of the ingot and a plane where the lasers are focused (see Hinohara, Figs. 1-5B).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0160708 to Hinohara in view of US 10,562,130 to Donofrio et al., JP 2013049161 A, and Us 2012/0319249 to Uchida, and further in view of US 2016/0354562 to Hirata.
In re Claim 3, modified Hinohara, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein, in the indexing feed step, the indexing feed is executed in such a manner that the separation bands that are adjacent are in contact with each other.
However, Hirata teaches that it is known in the art of creating cracks to provide the separation bands that are adjacent are in contact with each other (see Fig. 6, #25/23; see also Paras. 0010 and 0036-38).
In the same field of invention, laser produced cracks for ingots, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to execute the indexing feed such that the separation bands that are adjacent are in contact with each other, as taught by Hirata. Doing so provides connecting cracks that easily separate the thickness of the wafer from the ingot (see Hirata, Para. 0010).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0160708 to Hinohara in view of US 10,562,130 to Donofrio et al., JP 2013049161 A, and Us 2012/0319249 to Uchida, and further in view of US 2019/0039187 to Sekiya.
In re Claim 4, modified Hinohara, in re Claim 1, does not teach further comprising: a planarization step of planarizing the crystal plane (100) of the silicon ingot before the separation band forming step.
However, Sekiya teaches a planarization step of planarizing the crystal plane (100) of the silicon ingot before the separation band forming step (see Sekiya, Fig. 6 and Para. 0006 and 0025).
In the same field of invention, separating wafers from an ingot, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide a planarization step of planarizing the crystal plane (100) of the silicon ingot before the separation band forming step, as taught by Sekiya. Doing so will provide a surface that does not hinder incidence thereon of a pulsed laser beam LB in a separation layer forming step and a production history forming step which will be described later (see Sekiya, Para. 0025-0027).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0160708 to Hinohara in view of US 10,562,130 to Donofrio et al., JP 2013049161 A, and Us 2012/0319249 to Uchida, and further in view of EP 1345726B1.
In re Claim 6, modified Hinohara, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein a spatial light modulator causes the laser beam to branch into the plurality of laser beams. However, EP 1345726B1 teaches that it is known in the art of lasers to use a spatial light modulator to branch one laser in to multiple lasers (see EP 1345726B1, Figs. 1, #1 to #7; Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, #1 to #28; see also Claim 1). In the same field of invention, lasers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the structure of EP 1345726B1 to create the multiple lasers of modified Hinohara, in re Claim 1. Doing so provides a structure that divides a primary laser beam into a plurality of laser beams, each modulated separately and independently, thus achieving multi-tasking performance where each modulated beam carries out a predetermined part of the overall task, and where the plurality of beams perform together the entire task (see EP 1345726B1, under “Brief description of the invention,” second paragraph).
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0160708 to Hinohara in view of US 10,562,130 to Donofrio et al., and JP 2013049161 A.
In re Claim 11, Hinohara teaches a silicon substrate manufacturing method for manufacturing a silicon substrate from a silicon ingot in which a first crystal plane is made to be a flat surface (see Fig. 4a, ingot #50 with face #52), the silicon substrate manufacturing method comprising:
a separation band forming step of forming a separation band (see Fig. 4B, #70) through positioning a focal point of a laser beam(see Fig. 4A-B,”LB;” see also Para. 0032-33) with a wavelength having transmissibility with respect to silicon to a depth equivalent to a thickness of the silicon substrate to be manufactured from the flat surface (see Figs. 4a-b, #70) and irradiating the silicon ingot with the laser beam while relatively moving the focal point and the silicon ingot in a direction parallel to or orthogonal to an intersection line at which the first crystal plane and a second crystal plane intersect (see Fig. 4a lines #70 are parallel to an adjacent line that passes through the ingot);
an indexing feed step of executing indexing feed, by a predetermined index distance between 100 µm and 320 µm (see Para. 0033, teaching and indexing amount of between 250 µm and 400 µm), of the focal point and the silicon ingot relatively in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the separation band is formed (see Figs. 4a-b, and Para. 0033 teaching index feeding the chuck table relative to the focal point); and
a wafer manufacturing step of executing the separation band forming step (see e.g., Fig. 5A-B) and the indexing feed step at least twice to form a separation layer parallel to the first crystal plane as a whole inside the silicon ingot and separating the silicon substrate from the silicon ingot at the separation layer to manufacture the silicon substrate (see e.g., Para. 0002 and Para 0033 teaching the peel-off layer forming processing and the indexing feeding are alternately repeated).
Hinohara does not explicitly teach wherein the laser beam is caused to branch into five laser beams in a direction of the indexing feed to form five respective focal points and wherein an interval between each of the five focal points of the branched pulsed laser beams is 10 µm,
and wherein the laser beam creates a broken region in the silicon ingot defined by the five focal points and the spaces therebetween, and further wherein the indexing feed step comprises moving the five focal points in the indexing feed direction so that they are spaced from the broken region.
However, Donofrio teaches that it is known in the art to use a plurality of laser beams (see Donofrio, Col. 34, ll. 27-42), which states:
In certain embodiments, multiple regions of one substrate may be processed simultaneously to form subsurface laser damage in multiple substrate regions, and/or multiple substrates may be arranged within a single tool for simultaneous or substantially simultaneous laser processing, to enhance tool throughput. In certain embodiments, an output beam of one laser may be split into multiple beams using one or more beam splitters, individual beams of the beams may either be supplied to different substrates or different areas of a single substrate, to form subsurface laser damage therein utilizing methods disclosed herein. In certain embodiments, multiple lasers may be used to simultaneously supply beams to multiple substrates or multiple areas of a single substrate, to form subsurface laser damage therein utilizing methods disclosed herein (emphasis added).
The Examiner notes that each of the “split” beams taught by Donofrio would form separate focal points in the workpiece.
In the same field of invention, lasers used to indicate a crack for future separation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to split the output beam of one laser into multiple beams, including 5 beams, using a beam splitter, as taught by Donofrio (see Donofrio, Col. 34, ll. 27-42) in order enhance tool throughput (Donofrio, Col. 34, ll. 28-33). Furthermore, doing so is a duplication of the essential working parts for a multiplied effect which is obvious unless there is a synergistic effect. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis CO., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977). Here, splitting a single laser beam into multiple laser beams would have been within the level of ordinary skill in order to increase the productivity (as taught by Donofrio). More laser beams equals less time needed to complete the cracks, which would process the workpieces quicker.
Further, JP 2013049161 A teaches that it is known in the art to separate the first point of a laser application and the second point of a laser application between 1 and 10 µm (see JP 2013049161 A, which states: the pitch of the irradiation point LP nearest other irradiation point LP of the one and the irradiation point LP of one of the laser beam L c of the hexagonal SiC crystal 10 and the (range of 1μm or less, for example 10μm) PT predetermined pitch to extend along the surface.”). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate the irradiation point of modified Hinohara between 1-10 µm, as taught by JP 2013049161 A. Doing so is combining prior art elements (dimensions between laser points) according to known methods or calculation to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so improves the throughput of cutting the workpiece (see JP 2013049161 A, Abstract).
This combination would provide for wherein the laser beam creates a broken region in the silicon ingot defined by the five focal points and the spaces therebetween(see e.g. Hinohara, Figs. 4 and 5b, #70/72 illustrating cracks for each laser beam, which are spaced apart), and further wherein the indexing feed step comprises moving the five focal points in the indexing feed direction so that they are spaced from the broken region (see e.g. Hinohara, Figs. 4 and 5b, #70/72 illustrating a feed direction along which the cracks are spaced apart).
Additionally, the combination would provide for a broken region, aligned along the direction of the indexing feed, in the ingot defined by the focal points and the spaces between. In other words, the broken region was interpreted as a region defined by focal points and spaced between the focal points. The Examiner notes that each of the “split” beams taught by Donofrio would form separate focal points in the workpiece with spaced between.
The Examiner notes that the range taught by Hinohara overlaps the range claim (see Hinohara, Para. 0033). As such, because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
In re Claim 12, modified Hinohara, in re Claim 11, teaches wherein the predetermined index distance is 320 µm (see Para. 0033, teaching and indexing amount of between 250 µm and 400 µm – see MPEP 2144.05, I).
In re Claim 13, Hinohara teaches a silicon substrate manufacturing method for manufacturing a silicon substrate from a silicon ingot in which a first crystal plane is made to be a flat surface (see Fig. 4a, ingot #50 with face #52), the silicon substrate manufacturing method comprising:
a separation band forming step of forming a separation band (see Fig. 4B, #70) through positioning a focal point of a laser beam (see Fig. 4A-B, “LB:” see also Para. 0032-33) with a wavelength having transmissibility with respect to silicon to a depth equivalent to a thickness of the silicon substrate to be manufactured from the flat surface (see Figs. 4a-b, #70) and irradiating the silicon ingot with the laser beam while relatively moving the focal point and the silicon ingot in a direction parallel to or orthogonal to an intersection line at which the first crystal plane and a second crystal plane intersect (see Fig. 4a lines #70 are parallel to an adjacent line that passes through the ingot);
an indexing feed step of executing indexing feed, by a predetermined index distance between 100 µm and 320 µm (see Para. 0033, teaching and indexing amount of between 250 µm and 400 µm), of the focal point and the silicon ingot relatively in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the separation band is formed(see Figs. 4a-b, and Para. 0033 teaching index feeding the chuck table relative to the focal point); and
a wafer manufacturing step of executing the separation band forming step (see e.g., Fig. 5A-b) and the indexing feed step at least twice to form a separation layer parallel to the first crystal plane as a whole inside the silicon ingot and separating the silicon substrate from the silicon ingot at the separation layer to manufacture the silicon substrate (see e.g., Para. 0002 and Para. 0033 teaching the peal-off layer forming processing and the indexing feeding are alternately repeated).
Hinohara does not teach wherein the laser beam is caused to branch into at least laser beams in a direction of the indexing feed to form at least three respective focal points, wherein an interval between each of the at least three focal points of the branched pulsed laser beams is 20 pm or less, and
wherein the laser beam creates a broken region in the silicon ingot defined by the at least three focal points and the spaces therebetween, and further wherein the indexing feed step comprises moving the at least three focal points in the indexing feed direction so that they are spaced from the broken region.
However, Donofrio teaches that it is known in the art to use a plurality of laser beams (see Donofrio, Col. 34, ll. 27-42), which states:
In certain embodiments, multiple regions of one substrate may be processed simultaneously to form subsurface laser damage in multiple substrate regions, and/or multiple substrates may be arranged within a single tool for simultaneous or substantially simultaneous laser processing, to enhance tool throughput. In certain embodiments, an output beam of one laser may be split into multiple beams using one or more beam splitters, individual beams of the beams may either be supplied to different substrates or different areas of a single substrate, to form subsurface laser damage therein utilizing methods disclosed herein. In certain embodiments, multiple lasers may be used to simultaneously supply beams to multiple substrates or multiple areas of a single substrate, to form subsurface laser damage therein utilizing methods disclosed herein (emphasis added).
The Examiner notes that each of the “split” beams taught by Donofrio would form separate focal points in the workpiece.
In the same field of invention, lasers used to indicate a crack for future separation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to split the output beam of one laser into multiple beams using a beam splitter, as taught by Donofrio (see Donofrio, Col. 34, ll. 27-42) in order enhance tool throughput (Donofrio, Col. 34, ll. 28-33). Furthermore, doing so is a duplication of the essential working parts for a multiplied effect which is obvious unless there is a synergistic effect. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis CO., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977). Here, splitting a single laser beam into multiple laser beams would have been within the level of ordinary skill in order to increase the productivity (as taught by Donofrio). More laser beams equals less time needed to complete the cracks, which would process the workpieces quicker.
Further, JP 2013049161 A teaches that it is known in the art to separate the first point of a laser application and the second point of a laser application between 1 and 10 µm (see JP 2013049161 A, which states: the pitch of the irradiation point LP nearest other irradiation point LP of the one and the irradiation point LP of one of the laser beam L c of the hexagonal SiC crystal 10 and the (range of 1μm or less, for example 10μm) PT predetermined pitch to extend along the surface.”). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate the irradiation point of modified Hinohara between 1-10 µm, as taught by JP 2013049161 A. Doing so is combining prior art elements (dimensions between laser points) according to known methods or calculation to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so improves the throughput of cutting the workpiece (see JP 2013049161 A, Abstract). The Examiner notes that 1-10 is less than 20.
This combination would provide for wherein the laser beam creates a broken region in the silicon ingot defined by the five focal points and the spaces therebetween(see e.g. Hinohara, Figs. 4 and 5b, #70/72 illustrating cracks for each laser beam, which are spaced apart), and further wherein the indexing feed step comprises moving the five focal points in the indexing feed direction so that they are spaced from the broken region (see e.g. Hinohara, Figs. 4 and 5b, #70/72 illustrating a feed direction along which the cracks are spaced apart).
Additionally, the combination would provide for a broken region, aligned along the direction of the indexing feed, in the ingot defined by the focal points and the spaces between. In other words, the broken region was interpreted as a region defined by focal points and spaced between the focal points. The Examiner notes that each of the “split” beams taught by Donofrio would form separate focal points in the workpiece with spaced between.
The Examiner notes that the range taught by Hinohara overlaps the range claim (see Hinohara, Para. 0033). As such, because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
In re Claim 14, modified Hinohara, in re Claim 11, teaches wherein the predetermined index distance is 320 µm (see Para. 0033, teaching and indexing amount of between 250 µm and 400 µm – see MPEP 2144.05, I).
In re Claim 15, modified Hinohara, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein the interval between each of the at least three focal points of the branched pulsed laser beams is between 5 pm and 15 pm (see JP 2013049161 A, which states: the pitch of the irradiation point LP nearest other irradiation point LP of the one and the irradiation point LP of one of the laser beam L c of the hexagonal SiC crystal 10 and the (range of 1μm or less, for example 10μm) PT predetermined pitch to extend along the surface.”).
In re Claim 16, modified Hinohara, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein the interval between each of the at least three focal points of the branched pulsed laser beams is 10 pm (see JP 2013049161 A, which states: the pitch of the irradiation point LP nearest other irradiation point LP of the one and the irradiation point LP of one of the laser beam L c of the hexagonal SiC crystal 10 and the (range of 1μm or less, for example 10μm) PT predetermined pitch to extend along the surface.”).
In re Claim 17, modified Hinohara, in re Claim 13, does not teach wherein the laser beam is caused to branch into at least laser beams in the direction of the indexing feed to form between three respective focal points and five respective focal points.
However, Donofrio teaches that it is known in the art to use a plurality of laser beams (see Donofrio, Col. 34, ll. 27-42). In the same field of invention, lasers used to indicate a crack for future separation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to split the output beam of one laser into multiple beams, including 3-5 beams, using a beam splitter, as taught by Donofrio (see Donofrio, Col. 34, ll. 27-42) in order enhance tool throughput (Donofrio, Col. 34, ll. 28-33). Furthermore, doing so is a duplication of the essential working parts for a multiplied effect which is obvious unless there is a synergistic effect. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis CO., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977). Here, splitting a single laser beam into multiple laser beams would have been within the level of ordinary skill in order to increase the productivity (as taught by Donofrio). More laser beams equals less time needed to complete the cracks, which would process the workpieces quicker.
In re Claim 18, modified Hinohara, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein the interval between each of the between three respective focal points and five respective focal points of the branched pulsed laser beams is 10 pm (see JP 2013049161 A, which states: the pitch of the irradiation point LP nearest other irradiation point LP of the one and the irradiation point LP of one of the laser beam L c of the hexagonal SiC crystal 10 and the (range of 1μm or less, for example 10μm) PT predetermined pitch to extend along the surface.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that none of the cited references teach “an indexing feed step of executing indexing feed, by a predetermined index between 100 and 320,” and "wherein the laser beam creates a broken region, which is aligned along the direction of the indexing feed, in the silicon ingot defined by the focal points and the spaces therebetween.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted above, Hinohara teaches an indexing amount of between 250 µm and 400 µm. (see Para. 0033). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (see MPEP 2144,05, I).
Additionally, the combination of US 2019/0160708 to Hinohara in view of US 10,562,130 to Donofrio et al., and JP 2013049161 A would provide for a broken region, aligned along the direction of the indexing feed, in the ingot defined by the focal points and the spaces between. In other words, the broken region was interpreted as a region defined by focal points and spaced between the focal points. The Examiner notes that each of the “split” beams taught by Donofrio would form separate focal points in the workpiece with spaced between. These split beams form the “broken region.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724