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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/04/2026, hereinafter NFOA. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 06/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the NFOA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hirata; Kazuya et al. US 10828726 B2, hereinafter Hirata, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument, that Hirata fails to disclose “the predetermined direction of the workpiece and the focal point in the separation layer forming step forms in a c-plane (0001), an angle of 5° or smaller relative to crystal orientations represented by the Miller-Bravais indices of {1120}”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant identifies several surfaces/planes:
a: workpiece first surface (Ln 3, aka workpiece top surface identified as (11a) [0018]),
b: workpiece second surface (Ln 3, aka workpiece bottom surface identified as (11b) [0018]),
c: separation layer/focal point (Ln 8/10),
d: c-plane (Ln 15),
e: crystal orientations/Miller-Bravais indices {1120} (Ln 16-17).
The applicant’s specification describes various planes and surfaces in [0018-0019]. Specifically, the first surface (11a) is stated to “corresponds to the c-plane represented by the following Miller-Bravais indices (0001)”. Therefore, of the above identified surfaces/planes; a, d and e are all the same surface/plane. Furthermore, the applicant appears to be claiming by the above limitation that the separation layer/focal (c) has an angle within 5° of the first surface/c-plane/crystal orientations (a, d, e).
With the above arrangement recognized, Hirata is described as follows:
Hirata discloses/depicts in Fig. 1-6 a first embodiment with a nominal/perfect ingot (2) whereby the first/top surface (4) is aligned with the c-AXIS and forming a separation layer exactly at the c-PLANE. Hirata’s arrangement is identified differently than the applicant’s. Namely, Hirata conflates (d/e) with (c). Regardless of the nomenclature, (c) is exactly 0° from (a, d, e) and thereby meets the claim limitation.
Hirata discloses/depicts in Fig. 7-9 a second embodiment with an imperfect ingot (40) whereby the first/top surface (42) is angled with the c-AXIS by (alpha = 1, 3 or 6 degrees) and forming a separation layer exactly at the c-PLANE. Fig. 8 (Col 9 Ln 19-Col 10 Ln 14) appears to be showing the steps taken to form the separation layer at the c-PLANE by taking alpha into consideration. Also, exemplary angles of (c) as 1° and 3° from (a, d, e) and thereby also meets the claim limitation
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-10, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument, that Hirata or subsequent secondary references fails to cure the above deficiencies of claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, Hirata is not deficient. Therefore, this argument is moot.
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 1-10 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 " the predetermined direction of the workpiece and the focal point in the separation layer forming step forms in a c-plane (0001), an angle of 5° or smaller relative to crystal orientations represented by the Miller-Bravais indices of {1120}”. It is unclear what is formed in the c-plane and how the ‘what’ has an angle relative to the crystal orientations. Furthermore, the specification identifies the c-plane corresponds with the first/top surface of the workpiece in [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.
Claims 2-10 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 of the workpiece and the focal point in the separation layer forming step forms, in a c-plane (0001) (“c-plane”), an angle of 5° or smaller relative to crystal orientations represented by the Miller-Bravais indices of {1120} (Col 8 Ln 19-21).
As stated above in the arguments section, both embodiments (1: Fig. 1-6, 2: Fig. 7) disclose forming a separation layer is within 5 degrees of a plane formed by crystal orientation (1: 0°, Col 3 Ln 64 - Col 4 Ln 7, Col 5 Ln 7-11; 2: 1° and 3°, Col 9 Ln 19-Col 10 Ln 14).
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, 9 and 10 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, the separation layer comprises a plurality of separation layers formed in the first moving region and the second moving region, respectively, and each of the separation layers includes a plurality of modified regions (the modified device of Hirata/West comprises first and second moving regions/layers and each contain a plurality of modified regions), and,
wherein 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).
Regarding claim 9, as far as is definite, West discloses (Fig. 2B, 7, 11) the pulsed laser beam is converted to a burst mode laser beam (as depicted in Fig. 11, the laser is pulsed/burst at particular intervals/cycles while scanning from left to right).
Regarding claim 10, as far as is definite, West discloses (Fig. 2B, 7, 11) the burst mode laser beam includes a pulse group having a plurality of pulses that is repeated at a predetermined cycle (as depicted in Fig. 11, the laser is pulsed/burst at particular intervals/cycles while scanning from left to right).
Contact Information
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 MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 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 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.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights