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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 12/24/2024 and 09/10/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group l, a processing method of single crystal material, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has been advised to replace “In” in line 3 to – in --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “90° ~ 130°” in line 2. It renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether the unit of temperature is Celsius or Fahrenheit. For the compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted it as -- 90°C ~ 130°C --.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swoboda et al. (US 2020/0388538) in view of Perrottet et al. (“Clean Dicing of Compound Semiconductors Using the Water-Jet Guided Laser Technology”, IEEE/SEMI Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference, 2006).
With respect to claim 1, Swoboda teaches a processing method of single crystal material (“a method of separating at least one solid-state layer from a donor substrate”, Pa [0001]; “The crystal lattice planes 6 of the donor substrate 1”, Fig. 13), comprising:
providing a single crystal material as an object to be modified (“the donor substrate 2”, Pa [0443]), wherein the object to be modified has a first surface (“the surface 16”, Pa [0443]), a second surface the lower surface of the donor substrate 2) and a first side surface (“a circumferential surface 4”, Pa [0444]), the first surface is opposite to the second surface, and the first side surface is connected to the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 13);
rendering a first laser beam (“12”) irradiate the first surface of the object to be modified to form a modification layer (“10”) in an inner portion of the object to be modified, wherein the modification layer is located between the first surface and the second surface (“The laser beams 12 here penetrate into the donor substrate 2 analogously to the generation of modifications elucidated with regard to FIG. 12”, Pa [0443] and Fig. 13); and
rendering a second laser beam irradiate the first side surface to form a first notch on the first side surface, wherein the first notch corresponds to the modification layer (“The second diagram in FIG. 13 shows the generation of a depression 6 proceeding from a circumferential surface 4 in the direction of the center Z of the donor substrate 2, wherein the depression is generated by means of ablation laser beams 8 from an ablation laser”, Pa [0444]).
Swoboda teaches the generation of a depression 6 by means of ablation laser beams 8, but is silent to rendering a first water column and a second laser beam transmitted in the first water column impact and irradiate the first side surface synchronously.
In the same field of endeavor, clean dicing of compound semiconductors, Perrottet teaches the water-jet-guided laser technology of which the basic principle is to focus a laser beam into a hair-thin, low-pressure water jet, the water jet then guides the laser beam onto the wafer by total internal reflection at the interface between water and air (see Figure 1), and further teaches that one of the main advantages of this hybrid system – also called Laser-Microjet – is to prevent heat damage to the material by cooling the cutting edges in between the laser pulses; simultaneously the water jet removes the molten material generated by the laser so that contamination is avoided thanks to a thin water film that covers the wafer surface during the whole process and the particles, already cooled down by the water jet, cannot adhere to the wafer (pg 166, “WATER-JET-GUIDED LASER”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Swoboda with the teachings of Perrottet and substitute the water-jet-guided laser for at least the ablation laser of the ablation laser beams 8 in order to generate the depression 6 without heat damage and contamination.
With respect to claim 2, Swoboda as applied to claim 1 above further teaches in a condition where the first notch exists, destroy the modification layer to separate a processing object from the object to be modified (“triggering a crack 20”, Pa [0445]; “the solid-state wafer 1 split off from the donor substrate 2, on which the stress generation layer has additionally been disposed.”, Pa [0446]).
With respect to claim 8, Swoboda as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the modification layer is located on a reference plane, a propagation direction of the second laser beam is substantially parallel to the reference plane (Fig. 13), a normal direction of the reference plane and a crystal axis direction of the object to be modified form an angle θ, and 0°<θ<90° (“The crystal lattice planes 6 of the donor substrate 1 are inclined here relative to the generation plane 4, especially at an angle between 3° and 9°, preferably of 4° or 8°.”, Pa [0360]).
With respect to claim 9, the combination as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that the object to be modified further comprises a second side surface connected to the first surface and the second surface, and is disposed next to the first side surface or opposite to the first side surface, the processing method of the single crystal material further comprises: rendering the first water column and the second laser beam transmitted in the first water column impact and irradiate the second side surface synchronously to form a second notch on the second side surface, wherein the second notch corresponds to the modification layer and separates from the first notch by a distance. However, one would have found it obvious to render the water-jet-guided laser impact and irradiate both sides of the donor substrate 2 in order to generate the depressions on both sides so as to separate the solid-state layer from a donor substrate.
With respect to claim 10, the combination as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that the object to be modified further comprises a second side surface connected to the first surface and the second surface, and is disposed next to the first side surface or opposite to the first side surface, the processing method of the single crystal material further comprises: rendering a second water column and a third laser beam transmitted in the second water column impact and irradiate the second side surface synchronously to form a second notch on the second side surface, wherein the second notch corresponds to the modification layer and separates from the first notch by a distance. However, one would have found it obvious to duplicate the water-jet-guided laser and render the water-jet-guided lasers impact and irradiate both sides of the donor substrate 2 in order to generate the depressions on both sides so as to separate the solid-state layer from a donor substrate. It has been held that the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swoboda et al. (US 2020/0388538) in view of Perrottet et al. (“Clean Dicing of Compound Semiconductors Using the Water-Jet Guided Laser Technology”, IEEE/SEMI Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference, 2006) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Donofrio et al. (US 2020/0316724).
With respect to claim 3, the combination as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach before rendering the first water column and the second laser beam transmitted in the first water column to synchronously impact and irradiate the first side surface, fixing the object to be modified between a first transparent substrate and a second transparent substrate, wherein the first side surface of the object to be modified is exposed in an air gap between the first transparent substrate and the second transparent substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, laser-assisted methods for parting or removing relatively thin layers of crystalline material from a substrate, such as a boule or a wafer (Pa [0002]), Donofrio teaches that fracturing a crystalline material substrate 236 having subsurface laser damage 233 is promoted by application of a mechanical force proximate to one edge of a carrier 238 to which the substrate 236 is bonded, the bonded assembly includes a crystalline material substrate 236 having a subsurface laser damage region 233 being bonded between rigid carriers 238, 238′, each rigid carrier 238, 238′ includes a laterally protruding tab portion 239, 239′ registered with a flat 235 of the substrate 236, providing a local increased border region that defines a recess 231 into which a tool 219 may be inserted (Pa [0267] and Figs. 36A-C). Donofrio further teaches that a rigid carrier that is transparent to laser emissions of a desired wavelength may be bonded to a crystalline material substrate prior to subsurface laser damage formation (Pa [0214]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Swoboda in view of Perrottet with the teachings of Donofrio and provide the transparent rigid carriers, each rigid carrier including a laterally protruding tab portion, on the upper and lower surface of donor substrate in order to fracture the donor substrate having the modification by application of a mechanical force.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swoboda et al. (US 2020/0388538) in view of Perrottet et al. (“Clean Dicing of Compound Semiconductors Using the Water-Jet Guided Laser Technology”, IEEE/SEMI Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference, 2006) and Donofrio et al. (US 2020/0316724) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Semiconductor Equipment Corporation (Semicorp for short) (“Revalpha 3196”, 2020).
With respect to claim 4, Donofrio as applied in the combination regarding claim 3 above teaches that the bonded assembly includes a crystalline material substrate 236 having a subsurface laser damage region 233 being bonded between rigid carriers 238, 238′ (Pa [0267]), and further teaches that an assembly 188 includes the rigid carrier 202 and adhesive material 198, The adhesive material 198 may be cured according to the requirements of a selected bonding method (e.g., thermo-compression adhesive bonding, compression-aided UV bonding, chemically reactive bonding, etc.) (Pa [0259]), but the combination does not explicitly teach that the first surface and the second surface of the object to be modified are respectively fixed on the first transparent substrate and the second transparent substrate through a first pyrolytic glue layer and a second pyrolytic adhesive layer.
Semicorp relates Revalpha as a unique thermal release tape, and discloses that RA-98L(N), which was 3198, is used for chip transfer, temporary fix during dicing procedure, or temporary fix to prevent misalignment of substrates (“Applications”), and adhesive strength thereof becomes almost ‘zero’ by heating, it can be removed easily without damaging substrates, provides high processing accuracy, increases workability and helps process automation and labor saving (“Features”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Donofrio with the teachings of Semicorp and substitute RA-98L(N) tape for the adhesive material in order to remove it easily by heating without damaging the substrate.
With respect to claim 5, Semicorp as applied in the combination regarding claim 4 above further teaches that an adhesion of the first pyrolytic glue layer falls in a range of 0.02-3.00 N/20mm (0.13-3.88 kg/inch) (“General Properties”). In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
With respect to claim 6, Semicorp as applied in the combination regarding claim 4 above does not explicitly teaches that a peeling force of the first pyrolytic glue layer falls in a range of 9 gf/inch - 15 gf/inch. However, Semicorp teaches that adhesive strength becomes almost ‘zero’ by heating and it can be removed easily without damaging substrates (“Features”). One would have found it obvious to select the optimum peeling force of the tape by routine experimentations in order to easily remove the tape without damaging the substrate by heating. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to claim 7, Semicorp as applied in the combination regarding claim 4 above further teaches that a pyrolysis temperature of the first pyrolytic glue layer is 100° (“easy to release (100°C*1 min is standard)”, “Structure”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights