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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. Applicant's submittal of claims 1-20 in the “Claims” filed on 11/20/2023 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
This office action consider claims 1-20 pending for prosecution.
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.
2. Claims 3-13 and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 3, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing method of Claim 1 or 2, further comprising: forming a starting point modification layer serving as a starting point of the releasing of the stress in the chain manner” (Claim 3; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing method of Claim 1 or 2, further comprising: forming a starting point modification layer serving as a starting point of the releasing of the stress in the chain manner” (Claim 3) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 3 is dependent upon multiple claims (either claim 2 or claim 1). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing method of Claim 1 or 2, further comprising: forming a starting point modification layer serving as a starting point of the releasing of the stress in the chain manner” (Claim 3) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 4, it is rejected under 112(b) because of their dependency status from claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 3, wherein, in forming a starting point modification layer, the separating of the laser absorption layer and the second substrate is caused by radiating a laser beam, and the releasing of the stress in the chain manner is started by releasing the stress accumulated by the forming of the separation modification layer to a separation region formed by the forming of the starting point modification layer” (Claim 5; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 3, wherein, in forming a starting point modification layer, the separating of the laser absorption layer and the second substrate is caused by radiating a laser beam, and the releasing of the stress in the chain manner is started by releasing the stress accumulated by the forming of the separation modification layer to a separation region formed by the forming of the starting point modification layer” (Claim 5) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 5 is dependent upon multiple claims (of any one of Claims 1 to 3). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 3, wherein, in forming a starting point modification layer, the separating of the laser absorption layer and the second substrate is caused by radiating a laser beam, and the releasing of the stress in the chain manner is started by releasing the stress accumulated by the forming of the separation modification layer to a separation region formed by the forming of the starting point modification layer” (Claim 5) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 6, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing method of Claim 4 or 5, wherein the starting point modification layer is formed on an outer side than the separation modification layer in a diametrical direction” (Claim 6; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing method of Claim 4 or 5, wherein the starting point modification layer is formed on an outer side than the separation modification layer in a diametrical direction” (Claim 6) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 6 is dependent upon multiple claims (either claim 4 or claim 5). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing method of Claim 4 or 5, wherein the starting point modification layer is formed on an outer side than the separation modification layer in a diametrical direction” (Claim 6) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 7, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 6, further comprising: forming a peripheral modification layer along a boundary between a peripheral portion of the second substrate as a removing target and a central portion of the second substrate, wherein the separation modification layer is formed on an outer side than the peripheral modification layer in a diametrical direction” (Claim 7; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 6, further comprising: forming a peripheral modification layer along a boundary between a peripheral portion of the second substrate as a removing target and a central portion of the second substrate, wherein the separation modification layer is formed on an outer side than the peripheral modification layer in a diametrical direction” (Claim 7) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 7 is dependent upon multiple claims (of any one of claims 1 to 6). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 6, further comprising: forming a peripheral modification layer along a boundary between a peripheral portion of the second substrate as a removing target and a central portion of the second substrate, wherein the separation modification layer is formed on an outer side than the peripheral modification layer in a diametrical direction” (Claim 7) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 8, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 7, wherein the separation modification layer is not formed at a central portion of the laser absorption layer” (Claim 8; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 7, wherein the separation modification layer is not formed at a central portion of the laser absorption layer” (Claim 8) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 8 is dependent upon multiple claims (of any one of claims 1 to 7). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 7, wherein the separation modification layer is not formed at a central portion of the laser absorption layer” (Claim 8) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 9, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 8, wherein, by controlling a formation position of the separation modification layer and/or a radiation form of the laser beam when forming the separation modification layer, a formation area of the separation modification layer with respect to the laser absorption layer is increased” (Claim 9; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 8, wherein, by controlling a formation position of the separation modification layer and/or a radiation form of the laser beam when forming the separation modification layer, a formation area of the separation modification layer with respect to the laser absorption layer is increased” (Claim 9) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 9 is dependent upon multiple claims (of any one of claims 1 to 8). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 8, wherein, by controlling a formation position of the separation modification layer and/or a radiation form of the laser beam when forming the separation modification layer, a formation area of the separation modification layer with respect to the laser absorption layer is increased” (Claim 9) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 10, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 9, wherein a separation facilitating layer is formed between the second substrate and the laser absorption layer to facilitate separation of the second substrate” (Claim 10; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 9, wherein a separation facilitating layer is formed between the second substrate and the laser absorption layer to facilitate separation of the second substrate” (Claim 10) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 10 is dependent upon multiple claims (of any one of claims 1 to 9). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 9, wherein a separation facilitating layer is formed between the second substrate and the laser absorption layer to facilitate separation of the second substrate” (Claim 10) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 11, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 10, wherein, in the radiating of the laser beam to the laser absorption layer, a pulse-shaped laser beam is oscillated from a laser oscillator toward an optical element, and a frequency of the laser beam is adjusted in the optical element” (Claim 11; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 10, wherein, in the radiating of the laser beam to the laser absorption layer, a pulse-shaped laser beam is oscillated from a laser oscillator toward an optical element, and a frequency of the laser beam is adjusted in the optical element” (Claim 11) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 11 is dependent upon multiple claims (of any one of claims 1 to 10). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing method of any one of Claims 1 to 10, wherein, in the radiating of the laser beam to the laser absorption layer, a pulse-shaped laser beam is oscillated from a laser oscillator toward an optical element, and a frequency of the laser beam is adjusted in the optical element” (Claim 11) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 12, it is rejected under 112(b) because of their dependency status from claim 11.
Regarding Claim 13, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing method of Claim 11 or 12, wherein, in the radiating of the laser beam to the laser absorption layer, the laser beam from the laser oscillator is attenuated in an attenuator” (Claim 13; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing method of Claim 11 or 12, wherein, in the radiating of the laser beam to the laser absorption layer, the laser beam from the laser oscillator is attenuated in an attenuator” (Claim 13) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 13 is dependent upon multiple claims (either claim 12 or claim 11). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing method of Claim 11 or 12, wherein, in the radiating of the laser beam to the laser absorption layer, the laser beam from the laser oscillator is attenuated in an attenuator” (Claim 13) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 16, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 14 or 15, wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser radiation unit to perform formation of a starting point modification layer serving as a starting point of the release of the stress in the chain manner” (Claim 16; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 14 or 15, wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser radiation unit to perform formation of a starting point modification layer serving as a starting point of the release of the stress in the chain manner” (Claim 16) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 16 is dependent upon multiple claims (either claim 15 or claim 14). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 14 or 15, wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser radiation unit to perform formation of a starting point modification layer serving as a starting point of the release of the stress in the chain manner” (Claim 16) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claims 17-18, they are rejected under 112(b) because of their dependency status from claim 16.
Regarding Claim 19, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 17 or 18, wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser radiation unit to form the starting point modification layer on an outer side than the separation modification layer in a diametrical direction” (Claim 19; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 17 or 18, wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser radiation unit to form the starting point modification layer on an outer side than the separation modification layer in a diametrical direction” (Claim 19) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 19 is dependent upon multiple claims (either claim 18 or claim 17). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 17 or 18, wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser radiation unit to form the starting point modification layer on an outer side than the separation modification layer in a diametrical direction” (Claim 19) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 20, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 19, further comprising: a second laser radiation unit configured to form a peripheral modification layer along a boundary between a peripheral portion of the second substrate as a removing target and a central portion of the second substrate, wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser radiation unit to form the separation modification layer on an outer side than the peripheral modification layer in a diametrical direction” (Claim 20; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 19, further comprising: a second laser radiation unit configured to form a peripheral modification layer along a boundary between a peripheral portion of the second substrate as a removing target and a central portion of the second substrate, wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser radiation unit to form the separation modification layer on an outer side than the peripheral modification layer in a diametrical direction” (Claim 20) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 20 is dependent upon multiple claims (of any one of claims 14 to 19). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 19, further comprising: a second laser radiation unit configured to form a peripheral modification layer along a boundary between a peripheral portion of the second substrate as a removing target and a central portion of the second substrate, wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser radiation unit to form the separation modification layer on an outer side than the peripheral modification layer in a diametrical direction” (Claim 20) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 21, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 20, wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser radiation unit such that the separation modification layer is not formed at a central portion of the laser absorption layer” (Claim 21; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 20, wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser radiation unit such that the separation modification layer is not formed at a central portion of the laser absorption layer” (Claim 21) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 21 is dependent upon multiple claims (of any one of claims 14 to 20). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 20, wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser radiation unit such that the separation modification layer is not formed at a central portion of the laser absorption layer” (Claim 21) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 22, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 21, wherein the controller controls a formation position of the separation modification layer and/or a radiation form of the laser beam when forming the separation modification layer to increase a formation area of the separation modification layer with respect to the laser absorption layer” (Claim 22; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 21, wherein the controller controls a formation position of the separation modification layer and/or a radiation form of the laser beam when forming the separation modification layer to increase a formation area of the separation modification layer with respect to the laser absorption layer” (Claim 22) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 22 is dependent upon multiple claims (of any one of claims 14 to 21). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 21, wherein the controller controls a formation position of the separation modification layer and/or a radiation form of the laser beam when forming the separation modification layer to increase a formation area of the separation modification layer with respect to the laser absorption layer” (Claim 22) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 23, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 22, wherein a separation facilitating layer is formed between the second substrate and the laser absorption layer to facilitate the separation of the second substrate” (Claim 23; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 22, wherein a separation facilitating layer is formed between the second substrate and the laser absorption layer to facilitate the separation of the second substrate” (Claim 23) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 23 is dependent upon multiple claims (of any one of claims 14 to 22). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 22, wherein a separation facilitating layer is formed between the second substrate and the laser absorption layer to facilitate the separation of the second substrate” (Claim 23) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 24, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 23, further comprising: a control unit configured to control the laser radiation unit, wherein the laser radiation unit comprises a laser oscillator configured to oscillate the laser beam in the pulse shape, and an optical element configured to divert the laser beam from the laser oscillator in a different direction, and the control unit controls the optical element to adjust a frequency of the laser beam radiated to the laser absorption layer” (Claim 24; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 23, further comprising: a control unit configured to control the laser radiation unit, wherein the laser radiation unit comprises a laser oscillator configured to oscillate the laser beam in the pulse shape, and an optical element configured to divert the laser beam from the laser oscillator in a different direction, and the control unit controls the optical element to adjust a frequency of the laser beam radiated to the laser absorption layer” (Claim 24) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 24 is dependent upon multiple claims (of any one of claims 14 to 23). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing apparatus of any one of Claims 14 to 23, further comprising: a control unit configured to control the laser radiation unit, wherein the laser radiation unit comprises a laser oscillator configured to oscillate the laser beam in the pulse shape, and an optical element configured to divert the laser beam from the laser oscillator in a different direction, and the control unit controls the optical element to adjust a frequency of the laser beam radiated to the laser absorption layer” (Claim 24) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 25, it is rejected under 112(b) because of their dependency status from claim 24.
Regarding Claim 26, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 24 or 25, wherein the laser radiation unit comprises an attenuator configured to attenuate the laser beam from the laser oscillator” (Claim 26; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 24 or 25, wherein the laser radiation unit comprises an attenuator configured to attenuate the laser beam from the laser oscillator” (Claim 26) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 26 is dependent upon multiple claims (either claim 25 or claim 24). Therefore, the limitation of “The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 24 or 25, wherein the laser radiation unit comprises an attenuator configured to attenuate the laser beam from the laser oscillator” (Claim 26) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
3. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimoda et al. (US 20030224582 A1; hereinafter Shimoda).
Regarding claim 1, Shimoda teaches a processing method (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0098+], and as cited below),
of a combined substrate (Fig. 5; [0099-0149]) in which a first substrate (1; Fig. 5; [0099]) and a second substrate (6; Fig. 5; [0133]) are bonded to each other,
wherein a laser absorption layer (2; Fig. 5; [0099]) is formed on the second substrate (6; Fig. 5; [0133]), and
the substrate (Figs. 5-6; [0140-0149]) processing method comprises:
forming a separation modification layer (layer 2 remaining on substrate 6; see Fig. 6) by radiating a laser beam (Figs. 5-6; [0140-0149]) to the laser absorption layer (2; Fig. 5; [0099, 0140-0149]) in a pulse shape to accumulate a stress in the laser absorption layer (2; Fig. 5; [0099, 0140-0149]); and separating the second substrate (6; Fig. 5; [0133, 0140-0149]) by releasing the accumulated stress in a chain manner (Figs. 5-6; [0140-0149]).
Regarding claim 2, Shimoda teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shimoda further teaches wherein, in the forming of the separation modification layer (layer 2 remaining on substrate 6; see Fig. 6; [0140-0149]), the separating of the laser absorption layer (2; where at least a portion of layer laser absorption layer 2 is present on the second substrate as the separation modification layer) and the second substrate (6; Fig. 5; [0133, 0140-0149]) does not occur.
.
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 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
4. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Shimoda et al. (US 20030224582 A1; hereinafter Shimoda), in view of Bruland et al. (US 20050279736 A1; hereinafter Bruland).
Regarding claim 14, Shimoda teaches a processing apparatus configured to process (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0235 and 0098+], and as cited below),
a combined substrate (Fig. 5; [0099-0149]) in which a first substrate (1; Fig. 5; [0099]) and a second substrate (6; Fig. 5; [0133]) are bonded to each other,
wherein a laser absorption layer (2; Fig. 5; [0099]) is formed on the second substrate (6; Fig. 5; [0133]),
wherein the substrate (Figs. 5-6; [0140-0149, 0235]) processing apparatus comprises:
(see below for “a laser radiation unit configured to”) radiate a laser beam (Figs. 5-6; [0140-0149]) in a pulse shape to the laser absorption layer (2; Fig. 5; [0099, 0140-0149]) of the second substrate (6; Fig. 5; [0133, 0140-0149]); and
(see below for “a controller configured to control an operation of the laser radiation unit”), and
(see below for “wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser radiation unit to perform”) formation of a separation modification layer (layer 2 remaining on substrate 6; see Fig. 6) by radiation of the laser beam (Figs. 5-6; [0140-0149]) to accumulate a stress in the laser absorption layer (2; Fig. 5; [0099, 0140-0149]) by, and then, to perform separation of the second substrate (6; Fig. 5; [0133, 0140-0149]) by releasing the accumulated stress in a chain manner (Figs. 5-6; [0140-0149]).
As noted above, Shimoda does not expressly disclose “a laser radiation unit configured to radiate a laser beam in a pulse shape to the laser absorption layer of the second substrate; and a controller configured to control an operation of the laser radiation unit, and wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser radiation unit to perform formation of a separation modification layer by radiation of the laser beam to accumulate a stress in the laser absorption layer by, and then, to perform separation of the second substrate by releasing the accumulated stress in a chain manner”.
However, in the analogous art, Bruland teaches a methods and systems selectively irradiate structures on or within a semiconductor substrate using a plurality of laser beams ([Abstract]), wherein (Fig. 1+; [0090+]) the system 800 that control the relative movement of the workpiece 740 and the laser spots, the triggering of the laser (720; Fig 17; [0129]), and control of the switches 750, according to one illustrative control architecture. In particular, the workpiece 740 is mounted to a motion stage 660 that moves the workpiece 740 in an XY plane (the laser beams being incident upon the workpiece in the Z direction). One or more position sensors 680 sense where the workpiece 740 is relative to one or both of the laser beam spots and reports that position data to a controller (690; Fig 17; [0129]). The controller (690; Fig 17; [0129]) also accesses a target map 695, which contains data indicating target positions on the workpiece 740 that should be irradiated (Fig 17; [0129]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Bruland’s laser unit and controller into Shimoda’s method, and thereby, modified Shimoda’s (by Bruland) method will have a laser radiation unit (Shimoda Figs. 5-6; [0140-0149] in view of Bruland 720; Fig 17; [0129]) configured to radiate a laser beam (Figs. 5-6; [0140-0149]) in a pulse shape to the laser absorption layer (Shimoda 2; Fig. 5; [0099, 0140-0149]) of the second substrate (Shimoda 6; Fig. 5; [0133, 0140-0149]); and
a controller (in view of Bruland 690; Fig 17; [0129]) configured to control an operation of the laser radiation unit (Shimoda Figs. 5-6; [0140-0149] in view of Bruland 720; Fig 17; [0129]), and
wherein the controller (in view of Bruland 690; Fig 17; [0129]) controls the operation of the laser radiation unit (Shimoda Figs. 5-6; [0140-0149] in view of Bruland 720; Fig 17; [0129]) to perform formation of a separation modification layer (Shimoda layer 2 remaining on substrate 6; see Fig. 6) by radiation of the laser beam (Shimoda Figs. 5-6; [0140-0149]) to accumulate a stress in the laser absorption layer (Shimoda 2; Fig. 5; [0099, 0140-0149]) by, and then, to perform separation of the second substrate (Shimoda 6; Fig. 5; [0133, 0140-0149]) by releasing the accumulated stress in a chain manner (Shimoda Figs. 5-6; [0140-0149]).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Shimoda in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides a laser unit and controller where a system controls the relative movement of the workpiece and the laser spots, the triggering of the laser, and control of the switches, where one or more position sensors sense where the workpiece is relative to one or both of the laser beam spots and reports that position data to a controller. The controller 690 also accesses a target map, which contains data indicating target positions on the workpiece 740 that should be irradiated (Bruland [0129]), which provides an efficient method to irradiate a workpiece with a laser beam.
Regarding claim 15, modified Shimoda (by Bruland) teaches all of the features of claim 14.
Modified Shimoda (by Bruland) further teaches wherein the controller (in view of Bruland 690; Fig 17; [0129]) controls an output of the laser beam (Shimoda Figs. 5-6; [0140-0149] in view of Bruland 720; Fig 17; [0129]) such that the separation of the laser absorption layer (Shimoda 2; where at least a portion of layer laser absorption layer 2 is present on the second substrate as the separation modification layer) and the second substrate (Shimoda 6; Fig. 5; [0133, 0140-0149]) does not occur in the formation of the separation modification layer (Shimoda layer 2 remaining on substrate 6; see Fig. 6; [0140-0149]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898