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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a splitter unit” in claims 1, 2 and 4 invoking 112(f), thus interpreted to be, according to the specification [0027], to be a structure configured with a fiber coupler, or equivalents thereof.
“a delay unit” in claims 1, 2 and 4 invoking 112(f), thus interpreted to be, according to the specification [0027], to be a structure that is configured with an optical fiber, and adopts, as this optical fiber, an optical fiber having, for example, a refractive index of 1.5 and a length of 48 m to set a below-mentioned delay time at 80 ns, or equivalents thereof.
“a merger unit” in claims 1, 2 and 4 invoking 112(f), thus interpreted to be, according to the specification [0027], to be a structure configured with a fiber coupler, or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (US 20180043468 A1) in view of Katzir (US 20060103719 A1), IM (US 20090045181 A1), Imai (US 20050252894 A1), Muenz (US 20120154895 A1) and Cordingley (US 20080094640 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Hirata discloses a laser processing machine (2 Fig 1) for manufacturing a SiC wafer from a SiC ingot (Abstract), the laser processing machine (2) comprising:
a holding table (holding means 6, Fig 1, Para 0022) that holds the SiC ingot (50, Para 0027 top); and
a laser irradiation unit (laser beam applying means 10, Para 0022) that applies, to the SiC ingot (50) held on the holding table (6), a pulsed laser beam (a pulsed laser beam LB having a transmission wavelength to SiC is applied from the focusing means 38 to the ingot 50, Para 0029 bottom) of a wavelength having transmissivity for the SiC ingot (50),
wherein the laser irradiation unit (10) includes:
a laser oscillation unit (interpreted to be the unit that is inside the laser beam applying means 10 and emits the pulsed laser beam LB) that emits the pulsed laser beam (laser beam LB in Figs 3A-B), and
a condenser (focusing means 38, construed as the condenser, Para 0029 bottom, Figs 3A-B) that applies the pulsed laser beam (LB), with a focal point of the pulsed laser beam (focal point FP in Fig 3A) positioned at a depth which corresponds to a thickness of the SiC wafer to be manufactured (a focal point FP inside the ingot 50 at a predetermined depth from the first surface 52, wherein this predetermined depth corresponds to the thickness of a wafer to be produced, Para 0029 middle, Fig 3A), from an end face of the SiC ingot (end face 52 of ingot 50), and
SiC is dissociated into Si and C to form a separation layer (pulsed laser beam LB is initially applied to the ingot 50 to thereby decompose SiC into Si and C, Para 0030 top, to form a separation layer being a wafer 76 having a desired thickness in Fig 9, Para 0092 bottom).
Hirata is silent on the laser oscillation unit includes:
a seed laser that emits the pulsed laser beam at predetermined pulse intervals,
a splitter unit that splits the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser, into at least a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam,
a delay unit that delays one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam by a delay time slight enough such that the delayed pulse is applied while heat energy from the non-delayed pulse still remains in the SiC wafer,
a merger unit that merges the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam on a downstream side of the delay unit, and
an amplifier arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit, and
the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam.
However, Katzir teaches a pulsed laser beam (12, Fig 1, Para 0101) emitting from a laser oscillation unit (laser system 10) including:
a seed laser (high power pulsed laser 14, Para 0101 middle) that emits the pulsed laser beam (12) at predetermined pulse intervals (seed laser 14 employing a pulsed laser source and a pulse repetition rate multiplier, Para 0101 top),
a splitter unit (a beam splitting device 18) that splits the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser, into at least a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam (splitter 18 which splits the initial pulsed beam into N beams 20, Para 0101, where N is interpreted to be 2 beams, i.e. first and second pulsed laser beams),
a delay unit (22 Fig 1) that delays the pulsed laser beams (split beams are then each delayed by delay optical circuits 22, Para 0101),
a merger unit (combiner 26, Para 0101, Fig 1) that merges the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam on a downstream side of the delay unit (N time delayed pulsed beams 24 are combined by beam combiner 26, on a downstream side of delay unit 22, to form a combined beam 30, Para 0101 bottom, Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add to the laser oscillation unit in Hirata, a seed laser that emits the pulsed laser beam at predetermined pulse intervals,
a splitter unit that splits the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser, into at least a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam,
a delay unit that delays the pulsed laser beams,
a merger unit that merges the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam on a downstream side of the delay unit, as suggested and taught by Katzir,
because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (a laser irradiation unit disclosed by Hirata, and a laser oscillation unit that includes a seed laser, a splitter unit, a delay unit and a merger unit, taught by Katzir) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (arranging the elements as taught by Katzir into the laser irradiation unit in Hirata) with no change in their respective functions (to produce a pulsed laser beam for cutting the SiC ingot), and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Hirata in view of Katzir is silent on a delay time slight enough such that the delayed pulse is applied while heat energy from the non-delayed pulse still remains in the SiC wafer,
the delay unit that delays only one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam, and
an amplifier arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit, and
the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam.
However, IM teaches a delay time between 30 to 100 ns (a timed separation delay of 50-500 nanoseconds between laser beam pulses 62a and 62b, Fig 12, Para 0077 top;
in the instant specification, para 0046 states that the delay time is 30-100 ns and para 0054 describes that the delay time is set to cause a slight delay time such that the delayed pulse is applied while heat energy from the non-delayed pulse still remains in the SiC wafer,
since IM teaches the delay time of 50 ns to be within the range of 30-100 ns of the instant specification, the delay time of 50 ns of the laser beam pulses is interpreted to also cause a slight delay time such that the delayed pulse is applied while heat energy from the non-delayed pulse still remains in the SiC wafer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to program a delay time of 50 ns, as suggested and taught by IM, for the laser beam pulses in Hirata in view of Katzir, such that the delay time slight enough such that the delayed pulse is applied while heat energy from the non-delayed pulse still remains in the SiC wafer, because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", in this case, the prior art of IM teaches a delay time of 50-500 ns which overlaps and lies inside the 30-100 ns range of the instant specification, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Hirata in view of Katzir and IM is silent on the delay unit that delays only one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam, and
an amplifier arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit, and
the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam.
However, Imai teaches a laser oscillation system (Fig 10) having a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam (21 and 22, Fig 10) with a delay unit that delays only the second pulsed laser beam (delay unit 24 only applies to the second pulse laser beam 22).
Furthermore, Muenz teaches a laser beam system (Fig 9) having a splitter unit (beam splitter 98, Para 0129 middle) that splits the pulsed laser beam into a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam (first partial ray 100 and second partial ray 102), a delay unit (pulse delay module 88, Para 0129 bottom) with only the second pulse laser beam (102 Fig 9), where the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam merged into a combined pulsed laser beam downstream (first pulsed laser beam 102 and delayed second pulsed laser beam 100 merged into light pulse 104), and
the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser (laser beam 86 emitted by seed laser 84, Fig 9) is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the second pulsed laser beam (because of the delay of the second pulsed laser beam 100, the intensity of the combined pulsed laser beam 104 subsides more slowly, i.e. suppressed, by comparison with the pulsed laser beam 86, Fig 10, Para 0130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the delay unit in Hirata in view of Katzir and IM, to delay only the second pulsed laser beam, as suggested and taught by Imai, such that the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam, as suggested and taught by Muenz, because this arrangement can double the length of light pulsed laser beam (Muenz Para 00129 bottom) which is useful for reducing interference contrasts in the substrate plane (Muenz Para 0049).
Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai and Muenz is silent on an amplifier arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit.
However, Cordingley teaches a pulsed laser beam system (Fig 15b) having a merger unit (combiner 143, Para 0116) that merges the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam (splitter 142 divides laser 140 into two pulsed laser beams, Para 0116), and
an amplifier (145) arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit (143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add an amplifier, taught by Cordingley, on a downstream side of the merger unit in the machine of Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai and Muenz, because an amplifier can be useful in producing a higher output.
Regarding claim 2
Hirata discloses a method of manufacturing a SiC wafer from a SiC ingot (Abstract, Fig 1), the method comprising:
a pulsed laser beam irradiation step (laser beam applying means 10, Para 0022) of holding the SiC ingot (50, Para 0027 top) on a holding table (holding means 6, Fig 1, Para 0022),
emitting a pulsed laser beam of a wavelength having transmissivity for the SiC ingot (a pulsed laser beam LB having a transmission wavelength to SiC is applied from the focusing means 38 to the ingot 50, Para 0029 bottom), from a laser oscillation unit (interpreted to be the unit that is inside the laser beam applying means 10 and emits the pulsed laser beam LB), and
applying, to the SiC ingot (50) held on the holding table (6), the pulsed laser beam (LB) with a focal point of the pulsed laser beam (focal point FP in Fig 3A) positioned at a depth which corresponds to a thickness of the SiC wafer to be manufactured, from an end face of the SiC ingot (a focal point FP inside the ingot 50 at a predetermined depth from the first surface 52, wherein this predetermined depth corresponds to the thickness of a wafer to be produced, Para 0029 middle, Fig 3A) to form a separation layer (wafer 76 separating from ingot 50 in Fig 9); and
a wafer separating step (Para 0092, Fig 9) of separating the SiC wafer from the SiC ingot (pulsed laser beam LB is initially applied to the ingot 50 to thereby decompose SiC into Si and C, Para 0030 top, to form a separation layer being a wafer 76 having a desired thickness in Fig 9, Para 0092 bottom), and
SiC is dissociated into Si and C to form a separation layer (Para 0092).
Hirata is silent on wherein the laser oscillation unit includes:
a seed laser that emits the pulsed laser beam at predetermined pulse intervals,
a splitter unit that splits the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser, into at least a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam,
a delay unit that delays one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam by a delay time slight enough such that the delayed pulse is applied while heat energy from the non-delayed pulse still remains in the SiC wafer,
a merger unit that merges the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam on a downstream side of the delay unit, and
an amplifier arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit, and
the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam.
However, Katzir teaches a pulsed laser beam (12, Fig 1, Para 0101) emitting from a laser oscillation unit (laser system 10) including:
a seed laser (high power pulsed laser 14, Para 0101 middle) that emits the pulsed laser beam (12) at predetermined pulse intervals (seed laser 14 employing a pulsed laser source and a pulse repetition rate multiplier, Para 0101 top),
a splitter unit (a beam splitting device 18) that splits the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser, into at least a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam (splitter 18 which splits the initial pulsed beam into N beams 20, Para 0101, where N is interpreted to be 2 beams, i.e. first and second pulsed laser beams),
a delay unit (22 Fig 1) that delays the pulsed laser beams (split beams are then each delayed by delay optical circuits 22, Para 0101),
a merger unit (combiner 26, Para 0101, Fig 1) that merges the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam on a downstream side of the delay unit (N time delayed pulsed beams 24 are combined by beam combiner 26, on a downstream side of delay unit 22, to form a combined beam 30, Para 0101 bottom, Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add to the laser oscillation unit in Hirata, a seed laser that emits the pulsed laser beam at predetermined pulse intervals,
a splitter unit that splits the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser, into at least a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam,
a delay unit that delays the pulsed laser beams,
a merger unit that merges the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam on a downstream side of the delay unit, as suggested and taught by Katzir,
because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (a laser irradiation unit disclosed by Hirata, and a laser oscillation unit that includes a seed laser, a splitter unit, a delay unit and a merger unit, taught by Katzir) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (arranging the elements as taught by Katzir into the laser irradiation unit in Hirata) with no change in their respective functions (to produce a pulsed laser beam for cutting the SiC ingot), and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Hirata in view of Katzir is silent on a delay time slight enough such that the delayed pulse is applied while heat energy from the non-delayed pulse still remains in the SiC wafer,
the delay unit that delays only one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam, and
an amplifier arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit, and
the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam.
However, IM teaches a delay time between 30 to 100 ns (a timed separation delay of 50-500 nanoseconds between laser beam pulses 62a and 62b, Fig 12, Para 0077 top;
in the instant specification, para 0046 states that the delay time is 30-100 ns and para 0054 describes that the delay time is set to cause a slight delay time such that the delayed pulse is applied while heat energy from the non-delayed pulse still remains in the SiC wafer,
since IM teaches the delay time of 50 ns to be within the range of 30-100 ns of the instant specification, the delay time of 50 ns of the laser beam pulses is interpreted to also cause a slight delay time such that the delayed pulse is applied while heat energy from the non-delayed pulse still remains in the SiC wafer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to program a delay time of 50 ns, as suggested and taught by IM, for the laser beam pulses in Hirata in view of Katzir, such that the delay time slight enough such that the delayed pulse is applied while heat energy from the non-delayed pulse still remains in the SiC wafer, because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", in this case, the prior art of IM teaches a delay time of 50-500 ns which overlaps and lies inside the 30-100 ns range of the instant specification, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Hirata in view of Katzir and IM is silent on the delay unit that delays only one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam, and
an amplifier arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit, and
the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam.
However, Imai teaches a laser oscillation system (Fig 10) having a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam (21 and 22, Fig 10) with a delay unit that delays only the second pulsed laser beam (delay unit 24 only applies to the second pulse laser beam 22).
Furthermore, Muenz teaches a laser beam system (Fig 9) having a splitter unit (beam splitter 98, Para 0129 middle) that splits the pulsed laser beam into a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam (first partial ray 100 and second partial ray 102), a delay unit (pulse delay module 88, Para 0129 bottom) with only the second pulse laser beam (102 Fig 9), where the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam merged into a combined pulsed laser beam downstream (first pulsed laser beam 102 and delayed second pulsed laser beam 100 merged into light pulse 104), and
the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser (laser beam 86 emitted by seed laser 84, Fig 9) is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the second pulsed laser beam (because of the delay of the second pulsed laser beam 100, the intensity of the combined pulsed laser beam 104 subsides more slowly, i.e. suppressed, by comparison with the pulsed laser beam 86, Fig 10, Para 0130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the delay unit in Hirata in view of Katzir and IM, to delay only the second pulsed laser beam, as suggested and taught by Imai, such that the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam, as suggested and taught by Muenz, because this arrangement can double the length of light pulsed laser beam (Muenz Para 00129 bottom) which is useful for reducing interference contrasts in the substrate plane (Muenz Para 0049).
Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai and Muenz is silent on an amplifier arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit.
However, Cordingley teaches a pulsed laser beam system (Fig 15b) having a merger unit (combiner 143, Para 0116) that merges the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam (splitter 142 divides laser 140 into two pulsed laser beams, Para 0116), and
an amplifier (145) arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit (143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add an amplifier, taught by Cordingley, on a downstream side of the merger unit in the machine of Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai and Muenz, because an amplifier can be useful in producing a higher output.
Regarding claim 3
Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai, Muenz, and Cordingley discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 2.
Hirata further disclose that assuming that a direction orthogonal to a direction in which a C-plane (C-Plane in Fig 2B) is inclined with respect to the end face of the SiC ingot (end face 52 of ingot 50) and
an off-angle (off angle α, e.g., α=4 degrees, is formed between the c-plane and the first surface 52, Para 0027 middle) is formed is an X-axis (Fig 3B showing the X and Y-axis) and
a direction orthogonal to the X-axis is a Y-axis (Y-axis orthogonal to X-axis in Fig 3B),
the pulsed laser beam irradiation step includes:
a separation zone forming substep (Figs 4A-B )of
applying, to the SiC ingot (50 Fig 4A) held on the holding table (6), the pulsed laser beam with the focal point of the pulsed laser beam (FP of LB) positioned at the depth which corresponds to the thickness of the SiC wafer to be manufactured (Fig 3A), while feeding the SiC ingot for processing in an X-axis direction (pulsed laser beam LB having a transmission wavelength to SiC is applied from the focusing means 38 to the ingot 50 as moving the chuck table 22 relative to the focal point FP at a predetermined feed speed V in the X direction, Para 0029 bottom), thereby forming a strip-shaped separation zone with cracks propagating (modified layer 66 and the cracks 68 constitute the breakable layer 64, Para 0030 middle, Fig 4B), along the C-plane (Fig 4B), from each of modified regions where SiC has been dissociated into Si and C (the pulsed laser beam LB is initially applied to the ingot 50 to thereby decompose SiC into Si and C, Para 0030 top),
an indexing feed substep of feeding the focal point of the pulsed laser beam for indexing in a Y-axis direction (indexing is performed in such a manner that the chuck table 22 is moved relative to the focal point FP by a predetermined index amount Li in the Y direction, Para 0031 top) such that another strip-shaped separation zone (long strips 64 arranged side by side) is arranged side by side with the former strip-shaped separation zone with a predetermined interval in the Y-axis direction (intervals Li of 250 μm, Para 0031 top) therebetween, and
repeatedly conducting the separation zone forming substep and the indexing feed substep to form a separation layer formed from a plurality of adjacent strip-shaped separation zones (the indexing and the breakable layer forming step are repeated plural times to thereby form a plurality of similar breakable layers 64 as depicted in Figs 4A and 4B, thus, a separation surface 70 is formed by these plural breakable layers 64, Para 0031 bottom).
Regarding claim 4
Hirata discloses a method of manufacturing a SiC wafer from a SiC ingot (Abstract, Fig 1), the method comprising:
a pulsed laser beam irradiation step (laser beam applying means 10, Para 0022) of holding the SiC ingot (50, Para 0027 top) on a holding table (holding means 6, Fig 1, Para 0022),
emitting a pulsed laser beam of a wavelength having transmissivity for the SiC ingot (a pulsed laser beam LB having a transmission wavelength to SiC is applied from the focusing means 38 to the ingot 50, Para 0029 bottom), from a laser oscillation unit (interpreted to be the unit that is inside the laser beam applying means 10 and emits the pulsed laser beam LB), and
applying, to the SiC ingot (50) held on the holding table (6), the pulsed laser beam (LB) with a focal point of the pulsed laser beam (focal point FP in Fig 3A) positioned at a depth which corresponds to a thickness of the SiC wafer to be manufactured, from an end face of the SiC ingot (a focal point FP inside the ingot 50 at a predetermined depth from the first surface 52, wherein this predetermined depth corresponds to the thickness of a wafer to be produced, Para 0029 middle, Fig 3A) to form a separation layer (wafer 76 separating from ingot 50 in Fig 9); and
a wafer separating step (Para 0092, Fig 9) of separating the SiC wafer from the SiC ingot (pulsed laser beam LB is initially applied to the ingot 50 to thereby decompose SiC into Si and C, Para 0030 top, to form a separation layer being a wafer 76 having a desired thickness in Fig 9, Para 0092 bottom), and
SiC is dissociated into Si and C to form a separation layer (Para 0092).
Hirata is silent on wherein the laser oscillation unit includes:
a seed laser that emits the pulsed laser beam at predetermined pulse intervals,
a splitter unit that splits the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser, into at least a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam,
a delay unit that delays one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam by a delay time that is between 30 nanoseconds and 100 nanoseconds,
a merger unit that merges the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam on a downstream side of the delay unit, and
an amplifier arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit, and
the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam.
However, Katzir teaches a pulsed laser beam (12, Fig 1, Para 0101) emitting from a laser oscillation unit (laser system 10) including:
a seed laser (high power pulsed laser 14, Para 0101 middle) that emits the pulsed laser beam (12) at predetermined pulse intervals (seed laser 14 employing a pulsed laser source and a pulse repetition rate multiplier, Para 0101 top),
a splitter unit (a beam splitting device 18) that splits the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser, into at least a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam (splitter 18 which splits the initial pulsed beam into N beams 20, Para 0101, where N is interpreted to be 2 beams, i.e. first and second pulsed laser beams),
a delay unit (22 Fig 1) that delays the pulsed laser beams (split beams are then each delayed by delay optical circuits 22, Para 0101),
a merger unit (combiner 26, Para 0101, Fig 1) that merges the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam on a downstream side of the delay unit (N time delayed pulsed beams 24 are combined by beam combiner 26, on a downstream side of delay unit 22, to form a combined beam 30, Para 0101 bottom, Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add to the laser oscillation unit in Hirata, a seed laser that emits the pulsed laser beam at predetermined pulse intervals,
a splitter unit that splits the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser, into at least a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam,
a delay unit that delays the pulsed laser beams,
a merger unit that merges the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam on a downstream side of the delay unit, as suggested and taught by Katzir,
because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (a laser irradiation unit disclosed by Hirata, and a laser oscillation unit that includes a seed laser, a splitter unit, a delay unit and a merger unit, taught by Katzir) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (arranging the elements as taught by Katzir into the laser irradiation unit in Hirata) with no change in their respective functions (to produce a pulsed laser beam for cutting the SiC ingot), and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Hirata in view of Katzir is silent on a delay time that is between 30 nanoseconds and 100 nanoseconds,
the delay unit that delays only one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam, and
an amplifier arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit, and
the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam.
However, IM teaches a delay time between 30 to 100 ns (a timed separation delay of 50-500 nanoseconds between laser beam pulses 62a and 62b, Fig 12, Para 0077 top).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to program a delay time of 50 ns, as suggested and taught by IM, for the laser beam pulses in Hirata in view of Katzir, because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", in this case, the prior art of IM teaches a delay time of 50-500 ns which overlaps and lies inside the claimed range of 30-100 ns, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Hirata in view of Katzir and IM is silent on the delay unit that delays only one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam, and
an amplifier arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit, and
the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam.
However, Imai teaches a laser oscillation system (Fig 10) having a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam (21 and 22, Fig 10) with a delay unit that delays only the second pulsed laser beam (delay unit 24 only applies to the second pulse laser beam 22).
Furthermore, Muenz teaches a laser beam system (Fig 9) having a splitter unit (beam splitter 98, Para 0129 middle) that splits the pulsed laser beam into a first pulsed laser beam and a second pulsed laser beam (first partial ray 100 and second partial ray 102), a delay unit (pulse delay module 88, Para 0129 bottom) with only the second pulse laser beam (102 Fig 9), where the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam merged into a combined pulsed laser beam downstream (first pulsed laser beam 102 and delayed second pulsed laser beam 100 merged into light pulse 104), and
the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser (laser beam 86 emitted by seed laser 84, Fig 9) is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the second pulsed laser beam (because of the delay of the second pulsed laser beam 100, the intensity of the combined pulsed laser beam 104 subsides more slowly, i.e. suppressed, by comparison with the pulsed laser beam 86, Fig 10, Para 0130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the delay unit in Hirata in view of Katzir and IM, to delay only the second pulsed laser beam, as suggested and taught by Imai, such that the pulsed laser beam emitted by the seed laser is suppressed in a peak of energy per pulse owing to the delay of the one of the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam, as suggested and taught by Muenz, because this arrangement can double the length of light pulsed laser beam (Muenz Para 00129 bottom) which is useful for reducing interference contrasts in the substrate plane (Muenz Para 0049).
Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai and Muenz is silent on an amplifier arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit.
However, Cordingley teaches a pulsed laser beam system (Fig 15b) having a merger unit (combiner 143, Para 0116) that merges the first pulsed laser beam and the second pulsed laser beam (splitter 142 divides laser 140 into two pulsed laser beams, Para 0116), and
an amplifier (145) arranged on a downstream side of the merger unit (143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add an amplifier, taught by Cordingley, on a downstream side of the merger unit in the machine of Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai and Muenz, because an amplifier can be useful in producing a higher output.
Regarding claim 5
Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai, Muenz and Cordingley discloses the laser processing machine according to claim 1.
Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai, Muenz and Cordingley further discloses wherein the delay time is between 30 nanoseconds and 100 nanoseconds (IM teaches a timed separation delay of 50 nanoseconds between laser beam pulses 62a and 62b, Fig 12, Para 0077 top).
Regarding claim 6
Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai, Muenz and Cordingley discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 2.
Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai, Muenz and Cordingley further discloses wherein the delay time is between 30 nanoseconds and 100 nanoseconds (IM teaches a timed separation delay of 50 nanoseconds between laser beam pulses 62a and 62b, Fig 12, Para 0077 top).
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata in view of Katzir, Imai, Muenz and Cordingley, as applied to claims 1, 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Bruland (US 20080121627 A1).
Regarding claims 7-11
Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai, Muenz and Cordingley discloses the laser processing machine according to claims 1 and 5 and the manufacturing method according to claims 2, 4 and 6.
Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai, Muenz and Cordingley is silent on wherein a pulse width of the pulsed laser beam is 10 nanoseconds.
However, Bruland teaches that a pulse width of the pulsed laser beam is 10 nanoseconds (conventional laser-based semiconductor processing system have a laser with a pulse width of about 4 to 30 nanoseconds, Para 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to program pulse width of the pulsed laser beam in Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai, Muenz and Cordingley, to have a pulse width of 10 nanoseconds, as suggested and taught by Bruland, because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", in this case, the prior art of Bruland teaches a pulse width of 4-30 ns which overlaps and lies inside the claimed width of 10 ns, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata in view of Katzir, Imai, Muenz and Cordingley, as applied to claims 1, 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Ota (US 20160318122 A1).
Regarding claims 12-14
Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai, Muenz and Cordingley discloses the laser processing machine according to claims 1 and the manufacturing method according to claims 2 and 4.
Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai, Muenz and Cordingley is silent on wherein, in the merged pulsed laser beam, a pulse from the second pulsed laser beam is separated from an adjacent pulse from the first pulsed laser beam.
However, Ota teaches in the merged pulsed laser beam (Fig 1A showing pulse 150-a and 150b merging), a pulse from the second pulsed laser beam is separated from an adjacent pulse from the first pulsed laser beam (pulse 150-a from a first pulse laser beam and a pulse 150-b from a second pulse laser beam are overlapping but separated, as seen in Fig 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to control the pulse laser beams in Hirata in view of Katzir, IM, Imai, Muenz and Cordingley, such that in the merged pulsed laser beam, a pulse from the second pulsed laser beam is separated from an adjacent pulse from the first pulsed laser beam, as suggested and taught by Ota, in order to limit heat accumulation effects (Para 0011 bottom).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 2 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.
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 Thuyhang Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-5317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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 F. 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.
/Thuyhang N Nguyen/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights