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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-23 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DANG et al. (US 2015/0035173) in view of GROSS (US 2019/0308405).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 10, DANG teaches a method comprising providing a stack comprising a device substrate 21, bonding layer 24, light absorbing layer 25, and transparent substrate 22 (fig. 2), and exposing the light absorbing layer to light through the back side of the transparent substrate to separate the device and transparent substrate layers (paras. 30 and 34). DANG does not teach the light comprises a pulse of broadband light. GROSS teaches another method of separating bonded substrates via application of light through a transparent carrier substrate, wherein the light is applied via a flash lamp in the visual range (paras. 8 and 35), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be broadband, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the laser light of DANG with a flash lamp of GROSS in order to reduce separation time required by laser scanning and the expense of lasers (GROSS; para. 7).
Regarding claim 4, GROSS teaches pulsing to the entire area of the transparent substrate (para. 7).
Regarding claim 5, GROSS teaches applying light in the visible spectrum (para. 35), which is a range of approximately 300-700 nm, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize wavelengths in the claimed range because the ranges overlap (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, GROSS teaches that the light pulse increases the temperature of the light absorbing layer (para. 12).
Regarding claim 7, DANG teaches utilizing thermoplastic adhesive and heating the adjacent light absorbing layer (para. 37), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention the bonding layer would soften during exposing.
Regarding claim 8, DANG teaches removing only the release layer (para. 34), in which case it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the adhesive does not require chemical reaction.
Regarding claim 9, GROSS teaches separation after a one millisecond pulse of light (para. 10), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that peeling occurs within 5 seconds.
Regarding claim 11, DANG teaches separation by complete vaporization of the light absorbing layer (para. 61), such that mechanical force would not be required.
Regarding claim 12-13, DANG teaches the release layer comprises aluminum, tin, zinc, or other metals (para. 32).
Regarding claims 14-15, changing the order of process steps has been held per se obvious (MPEP 2144.04), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the bonding layer on the first surface before lamination or apply the light absorbing layer to the transparent substrate before lamination because both would result in the same structure of DANG.
Regarding claim 16, DANG teaches polishing the laminate before removing the support (pars. 3-4), which is equivalent to back grinding, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to perform any of the claimed operations because such were well-known fragile wafer processing steps in the art.
Regarding claim 17, GROSS teaches utilizing the method to separate solar cells (para. 5), where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such would include photonic circuits on a side of a solar cell substrate.
Regarding claim 18, GROSS teaches utilizing acrylics, epoxies, and other suitable adhesives (para. 37).
Regarding claims 19-20, DANG teaches controlling the energy density and pulse rate (para. 58) wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use pulse lengths and energy density ranges claimed depending upon the bonding material in order to separate the layers while minimizing damage to the layers and expense of unnecessary power.
Regarding claim 21, GROSS teaches utilizing two pulses (para. 29).
Regarding claim 22, GROSS teaches heating the layer several hundred degrees (GROSS; para. 9), but does not explicitly disclose 400 degrees Celsius. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to heat 400 degrees Celsius from the first temperature to the second temperature in order to separate the components without damaging them.
Regarding claim 23, GROSS teaches irradiation time of 1 millisecond (para. 10).
Regarding claim 26, DANG teaches thermoplastic adhesive (para. 35).
Regarding claim 27, DANG teaches spin coating the adhesive (para. 37).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as combined as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of INAO et al. (US 2013/0213582).
Regarding claim 24, GROSS teaches utilizing titanium metal in the release layer (para. 39), but does not teach utilizing an alloy of titanium and tungsten. INAO teaches another method of bonding and separation with a light absorbing layer, wherein the light absorbing layer comprises one or more metal of the group comprising titanium and tungsten (INAO; para. 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize an alloy of titanium and tungsten as the metal of GROSS because they are disclosed as functionally equivalent alternates.
Regarding claim 25, INAO does not teach a 10%/90% Ti/W combination, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize an alloy consistency claimed in order to produce sufficient heat to separate the bonded layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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 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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights