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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(a) and (b) regarding an annular stiffener have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 4/3/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards a standardized diameter are unpersuasive because one skilled in the art would not be apprised of what specific structure meets the claimed structure/elements or what information would fall under the limitation because specifications are subject to change and is the reason the claim limitations of claim 3 are unclear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 contain allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record by itself or in combination does not disclose the structural and functional limitations as recited in the claims. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose a method comprising a wafer manufacturing method of manufacturing a wafer from an ingot and a wafer manufacturing method of manufacturing a smaller-diameter wafer from a larger-diameter wafer as recited in independent claim 1 and 6 respectively.
The closest prior art of record is discussed hereafter:
JP 2021052178 A RIESKE
While RIESKE does disclose in paragraphs [0001] - [0160] and Figs. 1-12 describes a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, for example, a vertical silicon carbide power semiconductor device, comprising: a step of preparing a parent substrate 100 (paragraph [0118]) having a central region 110 including a plurality of device regions 115 and an edge region 180 (paragraph [0119]) and having main surfaces 101 and 102; a step of forming a peeling layer 150 in the central region 110 as shown in Fig. 5A by guiding a laser beam 800 to an exposed second main surface 102 of the parent substrate 100 (paragraph [0122]); a step of forming a groove 190 extending from the first main surface 101 into the parent substrate 100 (paragraph [0120]) at a certain distance from the lateral outer surface 103 by a laser ablation process (paragraph [0148]); and a step of dividing the peeling layer 150 along a dividing surface 155 to form a device substrate 410 consisting of a first parent substrate portion between the first main surface 101 and the dividing surface 155 (paragraph [0129]). It is described that it has, RIESKE does not disclose a first peel-off layer forming step… while positioning a focused spot of the laser beam in the ingot at a first depth from an end face of the ingot nor a second peel-off layer forming step of forming a second peel-off layer in the ingot…applying the laser beam to an area of the ingot that is smaller in diameter than the ingot while positioning the focused spot in the ingot at a second depth.
The claims in the application are deemed to be directed to an nonobvious improvement over the invention patented in RIESKE. The claims comprise irradiating a laser at a first depth at a larger-diameter and irradiating the laser at a second depth at a smaller diameter to optimize material usage of an ingot. In the examiner’s opinion, it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the laser irradiation at a first depth at a larger-diameter and irradiating the laser at a second depth at a smaller diameter.
The examiner finds no motivation to modify the prior art to include laser irradiation at a first depth at a larger-diameter and irradiating the laser at a second depth at a smaller diameter, therefore, the combination of the limitations of claim 1 and 6 are contain allowable subject matter and avoid using impermissible hindsight using the invention of the instant application as a roadmap.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 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.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “wherein the smaller-diameter wafer has a standardized diameter” is unclear what the applicant intends to be a standardized diameter.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation of “wherein the smaller-diameter wafer has a standardized diameter as established by the Standards according to Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI)” is unclear what the applicant intends to be a standardized diameter as well as which revision date and section of the SEMI specification are required to meet the limitations of the claim.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights