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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 to 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (20180251911) in view Mitsuharu (JP2017112336).
The Kubota et al reference teaches a method of substrate separation, note entire reference. A composite substrate has a layer grown on one of the surfaces, note, para 0023 and 0024. The substrate and grown layer can be silicon carbide, note para 0024. The composite is then subjected to a laser to cause a damage layer in the composite structure, note, figures 1 and 2. The composite is then separated at the damage layer, note example. The differences between the instant claim and the prior art are the growth rate and reuse of the substrate. However, the Mitsuharu reference teaches the growth rate over 500um and to reuse the substrate by separation methods, note para 0033. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Kubota reference by the teachings of the Mitsuharu reference to have a higher growth rate and reuse the substrates in order to increase production without lose of quality and have similar orientations in the growth from the substrates.
With regards to claim 2, the Kubota et al reference teaches a single crystal substrate over 150 um thick, which can be 4H or 6H silicon carbide, note para 0161 and 0054. The substrate is silicon carbide would have either a silicon or carbon face.
With regards to claim 3, the Kubota et al reference teaches a substrate with 0 off set from the 0001 plane, note para 0086 and 0054.
With regards to claim 4, the Kubota et al reference teaches a mono crystal layer and between 100-1000 um thick, para 0024.
With regards to claim 5, the Kubota et al reference teaches vapor deposition by chemical vapor deposition, note examples.
With regards to claim 6, the Kubota et al reference teaches surfaces to be ground and polished, note figures 1 and 2.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (20180251911) in view Mitsuharu (JP2017112336).
The Kubota et al and Mitsuharu references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the laser power. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable laser pulse power in the Kubota et al process in order to damage only a thin layer in the composite reducing lost.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (20180251911) in view Mitsuharu (JP2017112336) and Seddon (2019/0362960).
The Kubota et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the laser power. However, the Seddon reference teaches using lasers operating in a set path top to bottom, note fig 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Kubota et al process by the teachings of the Seddon reference to operate the laser in a set path in order to uniformly affect the composite structure.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 to 10 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights