DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-20 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. Claim 1 is indefinite because it’s unclear what is meant by “laser being associated with a first parameter group and a laser being associated with a second parameter group”. Specifically , how is the laser “associated” with the parameters? What would the skilled artisan consider as a parameter group, specifically a first and a second parameter group? It is unclear what applicant is trying to claim. Does the parameter group refer to the processing conditions of each laser during irradiation? Additionally, applicant claims that the “first parameter group corresponds to the second parameter group”. If the parameter groups are the same, then it’s unclear why applicant is claiming a first and a second parameter group. Claim 1 is indefinite because “ the modification”, the crystallinity” and “the surface roughness” lack pos itive antecedent basis. In claim 1, line 1, the examiner suggests the deletion of “;” before the term “comprising”. Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan considers as “thin film”. Claim 2 is indefinite because “the interface” lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 8 is indefinite because of the limitations of the surface roughness being converted from a first to a second roughness, the first roughness greater than the second roughness when performing the second laser process. Specifically, applicant is claiming converting the first to a second roughness, which reads broadly on converting a portion of a first roughness to a second roughness. It is unclear whether a portion of the first roughness is converted to a second roughness during the second laser process, such that during the conversion the first roughness is greater than the second roughness. It is unclear whether the conversion occurs during the second laser process, clarification is requested. Claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear whether “a damaged surface layer” is the same or different from “the surface layer” recited in claim 1. Additionally, “the surface roughness of the front side and the back side” lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 16 is indefinite because “the diameter” lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al. (US2002/0187594A1). Re claim 1, Yamazaki et al. teach a method for wafer treatment comprising a wafer base 100 comprising a surface layer 104c, performing a first laser process to irradiate the surface layer (Fig. 1c, paragraph 90) to modify the surface (i.e. forming a thin oxide film 105a, increasing the crystallinity, Fig. 1d), wherein the first layer is associated with a first parameter group (paragraph 110, wherein the first parameter group includes processing conditions such as the energy density); and performing a second laser process wherein the surface layer of the wafer is modified (paragraph 106, Fig. 1G), wherein the second parameter group of energy density is the same as the first parameter group of energy density. Specifically, paragraph 110 teaches the energy dens ity of the first and the second lasers being 476 mJ/cm2. In reference to the modification limitations, Yamazaki et al. teach in paragraph 90, the first laser light to improve crystallinity. Paragraph 154 teaches using the second laser light to smooth the surface of the semiconductor film, therefore the modification limitations of changing crystallinity and the surface roughness are met by the teachings of Yamazaki et al. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim (s) 2 - 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US2002/0187594A1) in view of Reder et al. (US2004/0154638) and further in view of Tamemoto (US2011/0298084A1). Yamazaki et al. teach a first laser process for changing the crystallinity and a second laser process for changing the surface roughness as described above. Yamazaki et al. fail to teach a laser process of inducing separation at an interface between the main surface and a thin film. Reder et al. teach a method of cleaning a wafer by irradiating a laser to remove unwanted deposits at the edge of the wafer (abstract). Fig. 1 step 140 teaches removing unwanted deposits such as film with a laser beam, wherein the film 30 is separated between the interface 35 between the main surface 25 and the thin film 30 (Fig. 2, paragraph 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Yama zaki et al. to include an additional laser beam process, as taught by Reder et al., for purposes of removing unwanted deposits/film from the substrate surface. Yamazaki et al. in view of Reder et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the wafer comprising a dielectric portion, conductor portion and semiconductor portion. Tamemoto teach a method of manufacturing a semiconductor element, wherein paragraph 58 defines the wafer to be a base substrate comprising semiconductor, dielectric and conductor layers laminated in or more layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Yamazaki et al., to include dielectric, conductor and semiconductor portions, since Tamemoto teaches a wafer comprising of plurality of laminated layers comprising dielectric, conductor and semiconductor portions. Re claims 3-4, the limitations are directed to the order of performing the claimed laser steps. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the processing parameters, depending upon such conditions as the energy density of the laser and the type of layers present on the wafer surface. Re claims 5-6, Yamazaki et al. teach planarization (CMP) including wet cleaning (paragraph 33). Yamazaki et al. do no teach cleaning after planarization. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the examiner argues that cleaning and planarization are commonly known steps during the manufacturing of a semiconductor substrate and the order of which these processes are performed are well within the skilled artisan in order achieve the desired result. Re claims 5-6, Yamazaki et al. in view of Reder et al. and Tamemoto fail to further teach the focal offset distance of the laser being within the surface layer, and further fails to te ach the claimed laser focal offset distances. The focal offset distance of a laser is the distance between the probe tip of the laser and the substrate surface. Since Yamazaki et al. teach a first laser for irradiating film 104a, and a second laser smoothing the roughness of the surface, the examiner argues that it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan, absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, to adjust the processing parameters of the first and second laser, which would include adjusting the distance between the laser and the substrate surface, in order to achieve the desired result. Re claim 7, the limitations are met in view of the combined teachings of Yamazaki et al. and Reder et al. Specifically, Reder et al. teaches using a laser process to remove deposits on a part of the semiconductor portion, which reads on applicant’s broad limitation of degradation. Yamazaki et al. further teaches using a laser process to smooth the surface of the semiconductor film (paragraph 154), which also reads on applicant’s broad limitations of degradation. Re claim 8, Yamazaki et al. in view of Reder et al. and Tamemoto do not teach the first roughness to be greater than the second roughness . As discussed above, Yamazaki et al. teach a laser process (i.e. second laser light) to smooth the surface. The examiner argues that the skilled artisan would reasonably expect a first surface roughness to be greater than a second subsequent surface roughness, as a result of smoothing the surface. Specifically, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the surface roughness to decrease during the smoothing process performed by the laser. Re claim 10, applicant is directed to Table 2 of Yamazaki et al. which teaches an Ra value after second laser irradiation of 2.92nm, which is equivalent to 0.00292 microns, which reads on the claim limitations of less than 1 micron. Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US2002/0187594A1) in view of Reder et al. (US2004/0154638) and Tamemoto (US2011/0298084A1) and further in view of Kitagawa (JP2007298424 ; machine translation ). Re claim 9, Yamazaki et al. in view of Reder et al. and Tamemoto teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the claimed scanning pitches and widths. Kitagawa et al. teach inspecting a semiconductor device by changing the laser scanning pitch and width. In the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified processing parameters, such as scanning pitch and scanning width of the laser, as taught by Kitagawa, for purposes of inspecting efficiently a scanning area of the wafer surface. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 11 -20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to teach the limitations of claim 11 specifically directed to the values of at least two of the second power density, second spot size, and the second focal offset distance are smaller than their corresponding values in the first parameter group . The limitations of claims 12-20 are allowable in view of their dependency on claim 11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okumura teaches forming a thin-film. Koyama et al. teach manufacturing a wafer. Lin et al. teach UV treatment. Chi et al. teach chip manufacturing. Chen et al. teach wafer treatment. Boyle teaches laser machining of semiconductor materials. Venturini et al. teach irradiating a wafer by laser energy. Yamazaki et al. teach Ra values. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1297 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Barr can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1414 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT Sharidan Carrillo Primary Examiner Art Unit 1711 /Sharidan Carrillo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc