DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 18 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Effective Date of the Claims is 28 October 2019
It is noted that a certified translation of the foreign priority document was filed in parent application 17/772,163. The certified translation shows possession of the currently claimed subject matter. Accordingly, the effective date of the claims is currently 28 October 2019.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanoue’119 (US 2021/0296119 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanoue’119 teaches a method of processing a combined substrate in which a first substrate and a second substrate are bonded to each other (Figures 7-8; paragraph 37), the substrate processing method comprising: forming a peripheral modification layer along a boundary between a peripheral portion of the first substrate, which is a removing target, and a central portion of the first substrate (Figures 8-9; paragraphs 47-48 and 60-64); and forming a non-bonding region in which bonding strength between the first substrate and the second substrate in the peripheral portion is reduced (Figure 7; paragraphs 49-50), wherein the non-bonding region is formed by radiating a laser light from a side of the second substrate (Figure 7; paragraphs 49-50). It is noted that “a side of the second substrate” is satisfied by either side of the second substrate. The examiner must give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 2, Tanoue’119 teaches after the forming of the peripheral modification layer and the non-bonding region, removing the peripheral portion starting from the peripheral modification layer (paragraphs 69-70; Figure 6).
Regarding claim 4, Tanoue’119 teaches the peripheral modification layer is formed by radiating a laser light from a side of the first substrate (Figure 8).
Regarding claim 5, Tanoue’119 teaches the non-bonding region is formed by radiating the laser light from above the combined substrate (Figure 7).
Regarding claims 7-8, Tanoue’119 teaches the peripheral modification layer is formed after the forming of the non-bonding region (paragraphs 62-63) or the non-bonding region is formed after the forming of the peripheral modification layer (paragraph 110).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanoue’119 as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Itou (US 2014/0150980 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Tanoue’119 does not teach a wedge or a blade is inserted into an interface between the first substrate and the second substrate to remove the peripheral portion. It is noted that Tanoue’119 is not limited to any particular method for the separation (paragraph 72). Inserting a wedge or blade for similar separation is generally known in the related art. See Itou (Figures 6-8C; paragraph 151). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Tanoue’119 because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the separation in a known suitable manner, as suggested by the teachings of Itou.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanoue’119 as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Tanoue’157 (US 2022/0181157 A1).
The subject matter relied upon in Tanoue’157 has an effective date of 19 April 2019, i.e. it is supported by the earlier foreign priority document of Tanoue’157.
Regarding claim 6, Tanoue’119 does not teach an inner end portion of the non-bonding region in a diametrical direction is located further outward in the diametrical direction than a position where the peripheral modification layer is formed. However Tanoue’157 suggests this arrangement to suitably allow separation of the peripheral portion of the first substrate removing target (Figures 9-10; paragraphs 73 and 81). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Tanoue’119 because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suitably arrange the non-bonding region and the peripheral modification layer in a known manner to facilitate separation of the peripheral portion, as suggested by the teachings of Tanoue’157.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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 A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights