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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 20 July 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 20 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2019/0304800) in view of Ohmi et al. (US 6,039,814) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kawasaki et al. (US 20030010353).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2019/0304800) in view of Ohmi et al. (US 6,039,814) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 20190304800) in view of Kawasaki et al. (hereafter Kawasaki – US 20030010353).
Claim 1 recites “a wafer manufacturing method.” Yamamoto teaches such a wafer manufacturing method, as will be shown.
Yamamoto teaches (Figs. 1-9) a wafer manufacturing method for manufacturing a wafer from an ingot, comprising:
a peeling start point forming step of applying, to the ingot 50, a laser beam LB of such a wavelength as to be transmitted through the ingot (para. 0034), with a focal point of the laser beam positioned at a depth corresponding to a thickness of the wafer to be manufactured (para. 0034), from an end face of the ingot (para. 0034), to form a modified layer, thereby forming a peeling start point (para. 0034); and
a peeling step of peeling off, from the peeling start point, the wafer to be manufactured from the ingot (para. 0031),
wherein, in the peeling step, water is supplied to the end face of the ingot to generate a water layer, and an ultrasonic wave is applied to break the peeling start point (para. 0045).
However, Yamamoto does not teach degassed water is supplied to generate a degassed water layer, and an ultrasonic wave is applied through the degassed water layer, wherein the degassed water is produced by storing water in a separately prepared decompression tank in advance and reducing the pressure in the decompression tank.
Kawasaki teaches a wafer manufacturing method comprising degassed water is supplied to generate a degassed water layer, and an ultrasonic wave is applied through the degassed water layer, wherein the degassed water is produced by storing water in a separately prepared decompression tank 2 in advance and reducing the pressure in the decompression tank (para. 0055-0056).
Kawasaki further teaches using degassed water to generate a degassed water layer, the degassed water is produced by storing water in a separately prepared decompression tank in advance and reducing the pressure in the decompression tank such the ultrasonic wave effect is enhanced, and that foreign matters on the semiconductor element is greatly reduced so that production yield thereof is further increased (para. 0030, para. 0041).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Kawasaki to the wafer manufacturing method of Yamamoto to have degassed water is supplied to generate a degassed water layer, and an ultrasonic wave is applied through the degassed water layer, wherein the degassed water is produced by storing water in a separately prepared decompression tank 2 in advance and reducing the pressure in the decompression tank, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to methods of applying degassed water and an ultrasonic wave to a wafer. Doing so would result in enhanced propagation of the ultrasonic wave and increased yield, as recognized by Kawasaki.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamoto, as modified with Kawasaki in Claim 1 above, teaches (Kawasaki Figs. 1-11) the wafer manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein, in the peeling step, the ultrasonic wave is applied to water reserved in a decompression tank (Kawasaki 2), to decompress an inside of the decompression tank, thereby generating the degassed water (para. 0027, 0055-0056).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamoto, as modified with Kawasaki in Claim 1 above, teaches (Kawasaki Figs. 1-11) the wafer manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein, in the peeling step, degassed water having an oxygen content of not more than 2.0 mg/liter is generated (Kawasaki teaches not more than 10 mg/liter but it would be obvious to arrive at this value through routine experimentation for improved performance, see Kawasaki para. 0065).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto, as modified with Kawasaki in Claim 1 above, teaches (Yamamoto Figs. 1-6) the wafer manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the ingot is a silicon carbide ingot (Yamamoto para. 0008).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamamoto, as modified with Kawasaki in Claim 1 above, teaches (Yamamoto Figs. 1-6) the wafer manufacturing method according to claim 4, wherein the silicon carbide ingot has a first surface, a second surface on a side opposite to the first surface, a c-axis extending from the first surface to the second surface, and a c-plane orthogonal to the c-axis, the c-axis being inclined relative to a perpendicular to the first surface, an off-angle being formed by the c-plane and the first surface, and the peeling start point forming step includes a modified layer forming step of relatively moving the focal point of the laser beam and the silicon carbide ingot in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the off-angle is formed, to form a rectilinear modified layer, and an indexing step of relatively moving the focal point of the laser beam and the silicon carbide ingot in the direction in which the off-angle is formed, to thereby perform index feeding by a predetermined amount (Yamamoto para. 0008).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. 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).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
