DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II and Species 2 in the reply filed on 7/8/26 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 19 and 20 each contain multiple figures that should be separately labeled. For example, figure 4 contains two different drawings that should be labeled 4a and 4b. This concept applies to the rest of the identified drawings 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 § 102
(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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Seddon, US 2019/0363020.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Seddon (figures 2 & 6-8) teaches a method of singulating silicon carbide comprising:
providing a silicon carbide (paragraph 0037) substrate 20 comprising a thickness; and
in a plurality of X-direction die streets (paragraphs 0041-0042):
irradiating the silicon carbide substrate 20 in an X-direction with a laser beam focused at a first focal point a first distance into the thickness in a first X-pass (paragraphs 0041-0042);
irradiating the silicon carbide substrate in the X-direction with the laser beam focused at a second focal point a second distance into the thickness in a second X-pass (paragraphs 0041-0042);
irradiating the silicon carbide substrate in the X-direction with the laser beam focused at a third focal point a third distance into the thickness in a third X-pass (paragraphs 0041-0042);
irradiating the silicon carbide substrate in the X-direction with the laser beam focused at a fourth focal point a fourth distance into the thickness in a fourth X-pass (paragraphs 0041-0042); and
in a plurality of Y-direction die streets:
irradiating the silicon carbide substrate in a Y-direction with the laser beam focused a first focal point a first distance into the thickness in a first Y-pass (paragraphs 0041-0042);
irradiating the silicon carbide substrate in a Y-direction with the laser beam focused a second focal point a second distance into the thickness in a second Y-pass (paragraphs 0041-0042);
irradiating the silicon carbide substrate in a Y-direction with the laser beam focused a third focal point a third distance into the thickness in a third Y-pass (paragraphs 0041-0042);
irradiating the silicon carbide substrate in a Y-direction with the laser beam focused a fourth focal point a fourth distance into the thickness in a fourth Y-pass (paragraphs 0041-0042);
irradiating the silicon carbide substrate in a Y-direction with the laser beam focused a fifth focal point a fifth distance into the thickness in a fifth Y-pass (paragraphs 0041-0042); and
breaking the silicon carbide substrate in the X-direction and in the Y-direction along the plurality of X-direction die streets and the plurality of Y-direction die streets, respectively (figure 5 & paragraph 0051), using an anvil (figure 6 (64), figure 7 (70) &/or figure 8 (80); and
expanding a tape 58 coupled to the silicon carbide substrate to separate a plurality of die from the silicon carbide substrate (figure 6 & paragraph 0053).
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.
The factual inquiries 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(s) 2-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seddon, US 2019/0363020, as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 2, though Seddon fails to specifically teach the first distance in the first X-pass is further into the thickness than the second distance in the second X-pass, the second distance in the second X-pass is further into the thickness than the third distance in the third X-pass, and the fourth distance in the fourth X-pass is further into the thickness than the third distance in the third X-pass, Seddon does teach optimizing the parameters of the laser (paragraph 0042). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
As to claim 3, though Seddon fails to specifically teach the first distance in the first X-pass is -26 microns, the second distance in the second X-pass is -19 microns, the third distance in the third X-pass is -13 microns, and the fourth distance in the fourth X-pass is -14 microns, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the distances through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
In re claim 4, though Seddon fails to specifically teach the first distance in the first Y-pass is further into the thickness than the second distance in the second Y-pass; the second distance in the second Y-pass is further into the thickness than the third distance in the third Y-pass; the fourth distance in the fourth Y-pass is further into the thickness than the third distance in the third Y-pass; and the fourth distance in the fourth-Y-pass is further into the thickness than the fifth distance in the fifth Y-pass, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the distances through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
Concerning claim 5, though Seddon fails to specifically teach the first distance in the first Y-pass is -26 microns, the second distance in the second Y-pass is -21 microns, the third distance in the third Y-pass is -13 microns, the fourth distance in the fourth Y-pass is -17 microns, and the fifth distance in the fifth Y-pass is -14 microns, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the distances through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
Pertaining to claim 6, though Seddon fails to specifically teach a scan speed used in the first Y-pass, the second Y-pass, the fourth Y-pass, and the fifth Y-pass is 510 mm/second and a scan speed used in the third Y-pass is 150 mm/second, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the scan speed through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
In claim 7, though Seddon fails to specifically teach a scan speed used in the first X-pass, the second X-pass, and the fourth X-pass is 525 mm/second and a scan speed used in the third X- pass is 150 mm/second, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the scan speed through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
Regarding claim 8, though Seddon fails to specifically teach a laser power used in the first X-pass and the fourth X-pass is 0.18 W; a laser power used in the second X-pass is 0.12 W; a laser power used in the third X-pass is 0.04 W; a laser power used in the first Y-pass, the second Y-pass, the fourth Y-pass, and the fifth Y-pass is 0.23 W; and a laser power used in the third Y-pass is 0.04 W, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the laser power through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
Claim(s) 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seddon, US 2019/0363020.
With respect to claim 9, Seddon teaches a method of singulating silicon carbide comprising:
providing a silicon carbide (paragraph 0037) substrate 20 comprising a thickness; and
in a plurality of X-direction die streets, irradiating the silicon carbide substrate in an X- direction with a laser beam focused at a focal point a distance into the thickness in four X- passes (paragraphs 0041-0042);
in a plurality of Y-direction die streets, irradiating the silicon carbide substrate in a Y- direction with the laser beam focused a focal point a distance into the thickness in five Y- passes (paragraphs 0041-0042);
breaking the silicon carbide substrate first in the Y-direction and then in the X- direction an along the plurality of X-direction die streets and the plurality of Y-direction die streets respectively (figure 5 & paragraph 0051), using an anvil (figure 6 (64), figure 7 (70) &/or figure 8 (80); and
expanding a tape coupled to the silicon carbide substrate to separate a plurality of die from the silicon carbide substrate (figure 6 & paragraph 0053).
Seddon fails to teach breaking using an anvil at a predetermined over travel height, an anvil distance of 0.39 mm, and a chopper drop speed of 20 mm/second.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the breaking conditions through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
Seddon fails to teach expanding the tape at a temperature of 60 C.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the temperature through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
As to claim 10, though Seddon fails to teach when the thickness of the silicon carbide substrate is 100 microns, the predetermined over travel height is 1.23 mm for the X-direction die streets and 1.21 mm for the Y-direction die streets, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize these parameters through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
In re claim 11, though Seddon fails to teach when the thickness of the silicon carbide substrate is 200 microns, the predetermined over travel height is 1.14 mm for the X-direction die streets and 1.12 mm for the Y-direction die streets, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize these parameters through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
Concerning claim 12, though Seddon fails to teach expanding the tape further comprises expanding at an expansion height of 8 mm, an expansion speed of 10 mm/second, and a hold time of 30 seconds, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize these parameters through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
Pertaining to claim 13, Seddon teaches method of singulating silicon carbide comprising:
providing a silicon carbide (paragraph 0037) substrate 20 comprising a thickness; and
in a plurality of X-direction die streets, irradiating the silicon carbide substrate in an X- direction with a laser beam focused at a focal point a depth into the thickness in a predetermined number of X-passes (paragraphs 0041-0042);
in a plurality of Y-direction die streets, irradiating the silicon carbide substrate in a Y- direction with the laser beam focused a focal point a depth into the thickness in a predetermined number of Y-passes (paragraphs 0041-0042);
breaking the silicon carbide substrate first in the Y-direction and then in the X- direction along the plurality of X-direction die streets and the plurality of Y-direction die streets, (figure 5 & paragraph 0051), using an anvil (figure 6 (64), figure 7 (70) &/or figure 8 (80); and
expanding a tape coupled to the silicon carbide substrate to separate a plurality of die from the silicon carbide substrate (figure 6 & paragraph 0053).
Seddon fails to teach each X-pass of the predetermined number of X-passes having a different laser spot diameter; and each Y-pass of the predetermined number of Y-passes having a different laser spot diameter, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize these parameters through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
In claim 14, though Seddon fails to teach in the X-direction, a first laser spot diameter of a first X-pass is larger than a second laser spot diameter of a second X-pass and a third laser spot diameter of a third X-pass is smaller than a fourth laser spot diameter of a fourth X-pass, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize these parameters through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
Regarding claim 15 though Seddon fails to teach in the Y-direction, a first laser spot diameter of a first Y-pass is larger than a second laser spot diameter of a second Y-pass, a third laser spot diameter of a third Y-pass is smaller than a fourth laser spot diameter of a fourth Y- pass, and a fifth laser spot diameter of a fifth Y-pass is smaller than the fourth laser spot diameter of the fourth Y-pass. , it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize these parameters through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
With respect to claim 16 though Seddon fails to teach a first depth of a first X-pass is -26 microns, a second depth of a second X-pass is -19 microns, a third depth of a third X-pass is - 13 microns, and a fourth depth of a fourth X-pass is 14 microns. , it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize these parameters through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
As to claim 17 though Seddon fails to teach a first depth of a first Y-pass is -26 microns, a second depth of a second Y-pass is -21 microns, a third depth of a third Y-pass is - 13 microns, a fourth depth of a fourth Y-pass is -17 microns, and a fifth depth of a fifth Y-pass is -14 microns. , it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize these parameters through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
In re claim 18 though Seddon fails to teach the fourth laser spot diameter of the fourth X-pass generates a modified region in portions of the plurality of X-direction die streets not covered by a pattern. , it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize these parameters through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
Concerning claim 19 though Seddon fails to teach the fourth laser spot diameter of the fourth X-pass burns a pattern present in portions of the plurality of X-direction die streets. , it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize these parameters through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
Pertaining to claim 20 though Seddon fails to teach the first laser spot diameter, second laser spot diameter, and third spot diameter generate a modified region in portions of the plurality of X-direction die streets covered by a pattern. , it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize these parameters through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Especially in view of Seddon (paragraph 0039) stating the parameters can be optimized.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach various aspects of the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 8/6/26
Prosecution Insights