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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) (Fig. 4 - 122, 124, 125) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-6 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 recites the limitation "the separation initiating point forming step" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a “a separating step of separating a wafer from the ingot along the separation initiating points” in line 19 but this language is not synonymous with line 22.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected as being rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 depends from Claim 1. Claim 2 recites in part (emphasis examiner’s):
wherein the focused spots formed in the ingot and spaced thicknesswise of the ingot from each other are arranged in respective different positions along the processing feed direction such that the ingot is processed successively at the focused spots in an order from the deepest focused spot to a shallower focused spot
while Claim 1 recites in part (emphasis examiner’s):
wherein the separation initiating point forming step includes forming a plurality of focused spots of the laser beam that are spaced thicknesswise of the ingot from each other in the ingot by a distance corresponding to a thickness of the wafer to be separated from the ingot, thereby simultaneously forming a plurality of layers of separation initiating points at respective different depths in the ingot in the entire plane processing step.
In Claim 1, the focused spots are claimed as simultaneously occurring while in Claim 2 these are claimed as successive occurrences. Claim 2 therefore does not incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim (Claim 1) to which it (Claim 2) refers.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 1, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al. (US 9764420) in view of Tamura et al. (US 7968432).
Regarding Claim 1, Hirata teaches
A method of manufacturing a wafer (27, Figs. 1-11) from an ingot having a first surface (11a) and a second surface (11b) that is opposite the first surface, comprising: an entire plane processing step of repeating a separation initiating point forming step of, while positioning a focused spot of a laser beam (part of 34) whose wavelength is transmittable through a material of the ingot within the ingot from the first surface side, moving the focused spot and the ingot relatively to each other along a predetermined processing feed direction (ex. Col. 5, lines 57-Col. 6, line 5 and Col. 7, line 48-Col. 8, line 34), thereby forming in the ingot separation initiating points including modified layers (Figs. 11a-c) in a plane parallel to the first surface and cracks developed from the modified layers, and an indexing feed step of indexing-feeding the focused spot of the laser beam relatively to the ingot in a direction perpendicular to the processing feed direction (ex. Col. 6, lines 6-19 and Col. 7, line 48-Col. 8, line 34); and a separating step of separating a wafer from the ingot along the separation initiating points (Col. 8, lines 28-34 and Col. 7, lines 27-58), after the entire plane processing step has been carried out, wherein the separation initiating point forming step includes forming a plurality of focused spots (Figs. 11a-11c) of the laser beam that are spaced thicknesswise of the ingot from each other in the ingot by a distance corresponding to a thickness of the wafer to be separated from the ingot.
Hirata does not teach
thereby simultaneously forming a plurality of layers of separation initiating points at respective different depths in the ingot in the entire plane processing step.
Hirata teaches successive steps of forming the plurality of focused spots spaced thicknesswise from each other (Figs. 11a-11c).
Tamura teaches
For manufacturing a wafer,
Forming a plurality of focused spots (Pa and Pb, Figs. 1-4) of the laser beam that are spaced thicknesswise of the ingot from each other in the ingot by a distance corresponding to a thickness of the wafer to be separated from the ingot, thereby simultaneously forming a plurality of layers of separation initiating points at respective different depths in the ingot in the entire plane processing step.
Since both references are directed to manufacturing a wafer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser processing of Hirata to use a plurality of focused spots to simultaneously (instead of successively, as shown in Figs. 11a-11c) form a plurality of layers of separation initiating points at respective different depths as taught by Tamura in order to reliably form multiple layers of normal modifying region groups Ga1 through Gb3 in a short period of time. The embodiment provides high throughput and is suitable for mass production (Col. 12, lines 39-59).
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.
Claims 3 and 4, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata in view of Tamura as modified in Claim 1 above and further in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 3, Hirata as modified teaches.
The method of manufacturing a wafer according to claim 1, wherein the ingot is a monocrystalline silicon ingot (Col. 4, lines 59-65) having a flat surface (13 or 15).
Hirata as modified does not appear to teach
a flat surface representing a crystal plane {100}, and the predetermined processing feed direction in the separation initiating point forming step is a direction parallel to a crystal orientation <100>.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the flat surface representing the specific crystal plane and specific crystal orientation relative to processing solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the ingot would have orientations and planes appropriate for processing and it appears the ingot of Hirata would perform equally well with the claimed orientations, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the ingot of Hirata to include the specific orientations as claimed for the purpose of processing an appropriately oriented crystal.
Regarding Claim 4, Hirata as modified teaches
The method of manufacturing a wafer according to claim 1, wherein the ingot is a monocrystalline gallium nitride ingot (Col. 4, lines 59-65) having a flat surface (13 or 15).
Hirata as modified does not appear to teach
a flat surface representing a crystal plane {0001}, and the predetermined processing feed direction in the separation initiating point forming step is a direction parallel to a crystal orientation <11-20>.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the flat surface representing the specific crystal plane and specific crystal orientation relative to processing solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the ingot would have orientations and planes appropriate for processing and it appears the ingot of Hirata would perform equally well with the claimed orientations, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the ingot of Hirata to include the specific orientations as claimed for the purpose of processing an appropriately oriented crystal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those items on the 892 each teach elements of the instant invention related to wafer processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday 9-3pm (part-time).
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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
