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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 9/6/23 have been considered.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration filed on 9/6/23 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikemoto et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0134833).
Referring to figures 1-15, Ikemoto et al. teaches a method of dividing a B-type gallium oxide substrate, the method comprising:
a step of forming a plurality of first dividing grooves along an extending direction of a (100) plane of a B-type gallium oxide substrate having the (001) plane as a main surface (see figures 6, 13a, 14a, paragraphs# 97-98, 149, 157);
a step of processing the B-type gallium oxide substrate into strips by cutting the B-type gallium oxide substrate in a direction perpendicular to an extending direction of the first dividing grooves (see figures 13b, 14b, paragraphs# 150, 158); and
a step of cleaving the strip-shaped B-type gallium oxide substrates along the first dividing grooves for singulation (see figures 13c, 14c, paragraphs# 151, 159).
Regarding to claim 2, the first dividing grooves are formed by etching (see paragraph# 20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikemoto et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0134833) applied in claim(s) 1-2 above in view of PRIEWASSER et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0312717).
Referring to figures 1-15, Ikemoto et al. teaches a method of dividing a B-type gallium oxide substrate, the method comprising:
a step of forming a plurality of first dividing grooves along an extending direction of a (100) plane of a B-type gallium oxide substrate having the (001) plane as a main surface (see figures 6, 13a, 14a, paragraphs# 97-98, 149, 157);
a step of processing the B-type gallium oxide substrate into strips by cutting the B-type gallium oxide substrate in a direction perpendicular to an extending direction of the first dividing grooves (see figures 13b, 14b, paragraphs# 150, 158); and
a step of cleaving the strip-shaped B-type gallium oxide substrates along the first dividing grooves for singulation (see figures 13c, 14c, paragraphs# 151, 159).
However, the reference does not clearly teach the first dividing grooves are formed on a back surface located on a side opposite to an element forming surface (in claims 3).
PRIEWASSER et al. teaches a semiconductor device wherein the first dividing grooves are formed on a back surface located on a side opposite to an element forming surface (see figure 5-6, meeting claims 3). It is also known in the art that absent a showing of unexpected result, a change in sequence involves routine optimization of process of prior art and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made. A change in sequence/reversal of process steps is obvious under 35 USC 103 (exparte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959)). See also in re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690,69 USPQ 330 (CCPA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first dividing grooves are formed on a back surface located on a side opposite to an element forming surface in Ikemoto et al. as taught by PRIEWASSER et al. because it is known in semiconductor to provide a high degree accuracy in process forming division line.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the reference teaches or suggest a step of forming a plurality of second dividing grooves in the element forming surface along the extending direction of the (100) plane, wherein a straight line connecting the first and second dividing grooves have an angle of about 76° with respect to the element forming surface (in claim 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thanh Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1695, or by Email via address Thanh.Nguyen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:00AM to 3:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Yara Green, can be reached on (571) 270-3035. The fax phone number for this Group 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://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to thy Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/THANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893