The arguments and amendments submitted 05/08/2026 have been considered. In light of amendments made, the USC § 112(b) rejections in the previous office action are hereby withdrawn. The merits of the claims, however, remain unpatentable as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the new limitation of “adjusting power of the laser beam to be applied to the ingot based on the thickness of the adjustment peeling layer", but there is no description or recitation of this step in the specification and therefore this feature is unsupported new matter. The specification only describes adjusting the power of the laser beam “such that the thickness of the adjustment peeling layer measured in the adjustment peeling layer thickness measuring step corresponds to a thickness set in advance” (para. 0011 of the PG Pub for the instant application). This passage does not support the breadth of adjusting the power based on the thickness of the adjustment peeling layer without evaluating for correspondence with a thickness set in advance. Dependent claims fall herewith.
Response to Arguments
The present amendment overcomes the 103 rejection of the claim 1 over Donofrio in view of Pietsch in the previous office action, rendering Applicant’s arguments moot. However, the claims are not presently patentable for the reasons described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/JRS/
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights