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):
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.
Claims 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 Ln 25-27 states the limitation "in a (0001) plane, an angle of 5° or smaller with respect to crystal orientations represented by the following Miller-Bravais indices (1)”. It is unclear what “a (0001) plane” is. It is further unclear what “the following Miller-Bravais indices (1)” is. The specification does not clarify what a (0001) plane is but does state “the first surface 11a corresponds to the c-plane represented by the following Miller-Bravais indices (2)” in [0018]. The specification does not appear to provide clarity of the Miller-Bravais indices (1), or any Miller-Bravais indices (see [0005, 0018, 0019]. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as the separation layer is within 5 degrees of a plane formed by crystal orientation.
Claim 7 Ln 3-5 states the limitation " separation layers are formed in the first moving region and the second moving region”. It is unclear if these separation layers are the same as or distinct from the separation layer stated in claim 1 Ln 19. Furthermore, the first and second moving regions lack antecedent basis and it is unclear to which previously limitation they are referring. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. It appears that if the claim were to be dependent upon claim 5, the antecedent basis issue would be alleviated. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as dependent upon claim 5 and the separation layers are the same as the layer stated in claim 1.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 1.
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.
-(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hirata; Kazuya et al. US 10828726 B2, hereinafter Hirata.
Regarding claim 1, as far as is definite, Hirata discloses (Fig. 1-9) a manufacturing method of a wafer (39) from a workpiece (2), the workpiece being an ingot of gallium nitride or a single-crystal substrate of gallium nitride (interpreted as intended use in accordance with MPEP 2111.02), having both a first surface (4) and a second surface (6) located on a side opposite to the first surface, and the wafer having a thickness smaller than a distance between the first surface and the second surface (as depicted, (39) is cut from (2) thereby fundamentally having a smaller thickness), the method comprising:
a holding step of holding the workpiece at the second surface thereof under suction (Col 4 Ln 48-50);
a separation layer forming step of, after the holding step, applying a pulsed laser beam with such a wavelength as to be transmitted through the workpiece to the first surface from a side opposite to the second surface, and with a focal point of the laser beam positioned at a predetermined depth level in the workpiece, relatively moving the workpiece and the focal point along a predetermined direction, thereby forming a separation layer in the workpiece (Col 5 Ln 1-20); and
a separation step of, after the separation layer forming step, separating the wafer from the workpiece using the separation layer as a start point (Col 7 Ln 1-42),
wherein the predetermined direction in the separation layer forming step forms, in a (0001) plane (“c-plane”), an angle of 5° or smaller with respect to crystal orientations represented by the following Miller-Bravais indices (1) (Col 8 Ln 19-21).
Regarding claim 2, as far as is definite, Hirata discloses (Fig. 1-9) further comprising: after the holding step and before the separation layer forming step, an annular processing step of positioning the focal point at the predetermined depth level and applying the laser beam in an annular pattern along an outer peripheral edge of the workpiece, thereby forming an annular separation layer in an outer peripheral region of the workpiece (Col 5 Ln 62 - Col 6 Ln 14).
Regarding claim 8, as far as is definite, Hirata discloses (Fig. 1-9) in the separation layer forming step, the laser beam to be applied to the workpiece is applied in a burst mode to the workpiece (Col 4 Ln 29-35, Col 5 Ln 28-36)
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata in view of KUMAR; Kitty et al. US 20160158886 A1, hereinafter Kumar. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (working stone like materials); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (cutting via laser beams). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 3, as far as is definite, Hirata discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1. Hirata further discloses (Fig. 1-9) in the separation layer forming step, after the workpiece and the focal point have been relatively moved in a regular annular pattern so as to follow the predetermined direction, the focal point is moved toward a center in a radial direction of the workpiece, and the workpiece and the focal point are then relatively moved in a smaller regular annular pattern so as to follow the predetermined direction (Col 5 Ln 62 - Col 6 Ln 14).
Hirata fails to explicitly state that the pattern is hexagonal.
Kumar discloses (Fig. 10) a separation layer forming step [0012], after the workpiece and the focal point have been relatively moved in a regular hexagonal pattern so as to follow the predetermined direction, the focal point is moved toward a center in a radial direction of the workpiece, and the workpiece and the focal point are then relatively moved in a smaller regular hexagonal annular pattern so as to follow the predetermined direction [0044].
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (forming a separation layer using a regular hexagonal pattern) for another (forming a separation layer using a regular annular pattern), and the results of the substitution (forming a separation layer) would have been predictable. Because both Hirata and Kumar teach forming separation layers using regular patterns, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute forming a separation layer using a regular hexagonal pattern for the forming a separation layer using a regular annular pattern to achieve the predictable result of forming a separation layer.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata in view of West; James Andrew US 10047001 B2, hereinafter West. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (working stone like materials); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (cutting via laser beams). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 4, as far as is definite, Hirata discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1, except fails to explicitly state that in the separation layer forming step, the laser beam is split into a plurality of laser beams, focal points of the respective laser beams are arranged so that the focal points are aligned side by side along a first direction, and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is set to be the predetermined direction. Instead, Hirata discloses a single laser beam.
West discloses (Fig. 2B, 7, 11) a laser beam (7) is split into a plurality of laser beams (18a, 18b, 18c…), focal points of the respective laser beams are arranged so that the focal points are aligned side by side (at “image plane” (17)) along a first direction (as depicted in Fig. 11, the vertical direction), and a second direction (as depicted in Fig. 11, the horizontal direction) orthogonal to the first direction is set to be the predetermined direction (“laser scan direction”).
West further discloses using a plural beam system enables the separation layer forming step can be completed in less time (Col 11 Ln 23-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Hirata, by splitting the laser beam into a plurality of laser beams, as taught by West, for the purpose of enabling the separation layer forming step can be completed in less time.
Regarding claim 5, as far as is definite, Hirata discloses (Fig. 1-9) in the separation layer forming step, the focal points are moved along the second direction, are then moved along the first direction, and are thereafter moved along the second direction, and when the focal points are moved along the first direction, the workpiece and the focal points are relatively moved along the first direction so that a first moving region, the first moving region including trajectories of the movement of the focal points along the second direction, and a second moving region, the second moving region including trajectories of the movement of the focal points along the second direction after the movement of the focal points along the first direction, partially overlap each other as seen in the first surface (Col 5 Ln 21-61) states that the separation forming step is performed such that there is overlap within the adjacent modified portions, See Fig. 3-4)
Regarding claim 6, as far as is definite, West discloses (Fig. 2B, 7, 11) in the separation layer forming step, the focal points are arranged side by side along the first direction at a spacing of 5 μm or greater and 20 μm or smaller (Col 11 Ln 23-30 states and example of 10 μm).
Regarding claim 7, as far as is definite, Hirata discloses (Fig. 1-9) in the separation layer forming step, separation layers are formed in the first moving region and the second moving region, respectively, and each contain a plurality of modified regions (as interpreted above under 112(b) (claim 5 dependency) and modified as stated above for claim 5, the modified device of Hirata/West comprises first and second moving regions and each contain a plurality of modified regions), and,
in each separation layer, the modified regions have an aspect ratio of 0.5 or greater and 3.0 or smaller, the aspect ratio being represented by (b/a) where “a” denotes a spacing (μm) between the modified regions formed side by side along the first direction and “b” denotes a spacing (μm) between the modified regions formed side by side along the second direction by relatively moving the focal points and the workpiece along the second direction (West depicts in Fig. 11, and Col 11 Ln 23-30 states an a=10 μm and b= 10 μm, resulting in a ratio of 1.0).
Relevant Art
The following is a listing of relevant art:
US 20190228980 A1, US 9789565 B2, US 20220001494 A1 discloses a device/method for manufacturing a wafer.
US 20080008854 A1 discloses a device comprises a plurality of laser beams.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached on 571-272-8648. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745