DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 12, 2026, has been entered.
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 § 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.
Claims 7-8, 10, 15-16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe (US 2011/0312193).
(Re Claim 7) Abe teaches a light-emitting device, comprising (Fig. 1):
a substrate (11) including an upper surface, a first side surface (11x), and a second side surface (11y) adjacent to said first side surface; and
a semiconductor light-emitting stack (21/12) including a first conductivity type semiconductor layer disposed over said upper surface of said substrate along a thickness direction of said substrate, a light-emitting layer disposed on said first conductivity type semiconductor layer opposite to said substrate, and a second conductivity type semiconductor layer disposed on said light-emitting layer opposite to said first conductivity type semiconductor layer (¶¶32-37),
wherein said first side surface includes X number of first laser inscribed marks, and said second side surface includes Y number of second laser inscribed marks, in which Y>X>0 and Y≥3 (see Figs. 1, 9, 13, and 14A, ¶¶42,112, e.g. Cx is half the length of Cy and when the intervals I1 and I2 are equal then 11x will have approx. half the marks Lb as 11y and each side clearly has many more than 3 marks, alternatively one could compare L2/I2 vs. L3/I3 and 11y will have more marks, additional options from Fig. 14A, the claim language does not preclude this treatment, a laser inscribed mark may be ascribed to an individual modified region, alternatively a modified region L1-L4 may be the laser inscribed mark, e.g. L1, L2 and L3 may be formed along the x direction on 11x and L4 may be formed along the y direction on 11y, several examples form three modified regions on one side (11x or 11y) and one modified region on the other side (11y or 11x) see Fig. 14A, ¶163), and
wherein said substrate (11) is formed as a crystal structure (¶¶34, 50), said first side surface corresponding to a cross sectional plane of said crystal structure that is resistant to cracking (the first side surface is the short side in the x-z plane, see Fig. 3A, the short side is the same plane as the flat 11c which is the [11-20] plane or a-plane, see ¶50), said second side surface corresponding to a cross sectional plane of said crystal structure that is easily cracked relative to said cross sectional plane that is resistant to cracking (the second side surface is the long side in the y-z plane, and is perpendicular to the a-plane, this is the m-plane or [1-100] plane), and
wherein each of said first laser inscribed marks has a size wider than that of each of said second laser inscribed marks in the thickness direction of said substrate (see Fig. 13, first marks along L2 having width in a thickness direction of H2, second marks along L3 having a width in a thickness direction of H3, also see ¶106).
(Re Claim 8) wherein an included angle between said upper surface and each of said first side surface and said second side surface ranges from 85° to 95° (see Fig. 1).
(Re Claim 9) wherein said first side surface includes a plurality of said first laser inscribed marks that are interconnected (the marks are interconnected through the substrate the marks are formed in).
(Re Claim 10) wherein said second laser inscribed marks are regularly arranged (see Figs. 1, 8A-8D, 9, 13, 14A/B).
(Re Claim 15) wherein at least one of first laser inscribed marks is formed with a plurality of explosion points (each mark L1-L4 is formed using a plurality of “explosion points” corresponding to La-Ld).
(Re Claim 16) wherein said second laser inscribed marks are arranged in parallel, a distance between two adjacent ones of said second laser inscribed marks being greater than 0 µm and being not greater than 30 µm (see Figs. 1 and 13, ¶¶41, 50, the substrate may be 50 µm thick and D1 is less than Ts/2, when 3 marks are on a side they will be within the claimed range).
(Re Claim 18) wherein a minimum distance between a central line of each of the first laser inscribed mark(s) and said upper surface is not smaller than 15 µm, and a minimum distance between a central line of the topmost one of said second laser inscribed marks and said upper surface is not smaller than 10 µm (see Fig. 1, ¶¶41, 50, the substrate may be 50-250µm thick and D1 is less than Ts/2).
(Re Claim 21) wherein said upper surface of said substrate has a rectangular shape, and has a first side connected to said first side surface and a second side connected to said second side surface, a length of said first side being shorter than that of said second side (Fig. 1, ¶42).
(Re Claim 22) wherein said first laser inscribed mark includes a plurality of first explosion points and each of said second laser inscribed marks includes a plurality of second explosion points (each mark L1-L4 is formed using a plurality of “explosion points” corresponding to individual modified regions La-Ld).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 2011/0312193) in view of Okuma et al. (US 2014/0001679), Sakamoto et al. (US 2009/0166808), and Kumagai (US 2010/0200550).
(Re Claim 12) wherein said first side surface includes a plurality of said first laser inscribed marks each extending in a first direction, at least one of said first laser inscribed marks including a plurality of first explosion points located at a central line of said first laser inscribed marks extending along the first direction, and first extending portions extending outwardly and irregularly from said first explosion points, respectively (see discussion below).
(Re Claim 13) wherein each of said second laser inscribed marks extends in a second direction, at least one of said second laser inscribed marks including a plurality of second explosion points located at a central line of said second laser inscribed marks extending along the second direction, and a plurality of second extending portions extending outwardly from said second explosion points, respectively (see discussion below).
Abe is silent regarding the claimed “explosion points” and “extending portions” as Abe only depicts the simplified modified regions, e.g. oval shapes, and lacks micrographs showing the random morphology of the real surface damage. A PHOSITA would be motivated to look to related art showing the actual damaged surface. Related art from Okuma shows the damaged surfaces resulting from the stealth dicing having the claimed explosion points, extending portions, and transverse cracks (see Figs. 14, 15, 18). Related art from Sakamoto also similarly shows the damaged surfaces including explosion points, extending regions and transverse cracks resulting from the stealth dicing process (see Figs. 20, 23-25, and 27-29). Related art from Kumagai also similarly shows the damaged surfaces including explosion points, extending regions, and transverse cracks, resulting from the stealth dicing process (see Figs. 16-20). In view of the prior art showing what conventional damage from a stealth dicing process looks like, a PHOSITA would easily recognize Abe’s substrate surfaces will similarly include the exploding points and extending portions as claimed as these features flow naturally from forming damaged regions within the substrate and then breaking the substrate for singulation.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 2011/0312193) as applied above, and further in view of Nakano et al. (US 2021/0233994), Inoue (US 2020/0287074), and Okuma et al. (US 2014/0001679).
(Re Claim 23) wherein the distance between two adjacent ones of said first explosion points ranges from 1 µm to 12 µm.
While Abe discusses various relationships between the intervals including wherein the pitch of the modified regions along one side is different than a pitch along another side, Abe is silent regarding any specific values. A PHOSITA would be motivated to look to related art to teach suitable ranges for the pitch of the modified regions. Related art from Nakano teaches different ranges for the pitch along each side of the device substrate. ¶188: “A pitch PR in the m-axis direction between central portions of a plurality of mutually adjacent a-plane modified portions 28 may exceed 0 μm and be not more than 20 μm. The pitch PR may exceed 0 μm and be not more than 5 μm, be not less than 5 μm and not more than 10 μm, be not less than 10 μm and not more than 15 μm, or be not less than 15 μm and not more than 20 μm.” ¶196: “A pitch PR in the a-axis direction between central portions of a plurality of mutually adjacent m-plane modified portions 29 may be not less than 0 μm and not more than 20 μm. The pitch PR may be not less than 0 μm and not more than 5 μm, not less than 5 μm and not more than 10 μm, not less than 10 μm and not more than 15 μm, or not less than 15 μm and not more than 20 μm.” Related art from Inoue teaches using combinations of different pitch, e.g. 3.5 µm along one side and 6.5 µm along another side (¶69), and that the pitch is a result effective variable that can be used to control the fracture strength (see Figs. 6A-8C, 9 and ¶¶59-74). Related art from Okuma also recognizes the pitch from 6-22 µm is a result effective variable and recognizes the dependency on different faces/planes (¶¶6-9, 58-104, Figs. 20-30). In view of the prior art teachings, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to select the first within the claimed range as these cover the conventional ranges commonly used in the prior art, further recognizing the pitch along different sides is selected to control the breaking properties along each crystal plane as desired. Also see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 2011/0312193).
(Re Claim 24) wherein one or more of said first laser inscribed marks has a depth greater than that of one or more of said second laser inscribed marks, said depth being measured inwardly from said first side surface in a direction perpendicular to the thickness direction.
As best understood, the claimed depth of the inscribed marks measured inwardly as claimed is a result of using a higher laser power to form larger damaged regions. From Fig. 13, the first marks along L1 having larger size damaged regions (H2) and using a larger power than the smaller damaged regions (H3 of L3) formed using a lower power (see Fig. 14 and ¶106). The larger marks from the higher power laser will have a greater depth into the substate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts Abe does not teach amended claim 7 or new claim 24. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, see updated rejection above and Abe’s Fig. 13 and ¶106.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK T. K. PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 pm (CST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/ERIK T. K. PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights