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 .
Detailed Action
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 08/17/26. Claims 1-26 are pending in this application
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C.§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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 14-16, 19, 20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being unpatentable over McKenna (US 6184063 B1).
Regarding claim 14, McKenna discloses A method for forming a plurality of integrated circuit (IC) chips, the method comprising:
adhering a wafer comprising perforations between dies of the wafer to a dicing tape (see fig 1 where 24 is on 18, see fig 6 disclosing kerfs on the wafer);
stretching the dicing tape around a contour and outer perimeter of a dome-shaped chuck (see figs 6 and 7 disclosing the tape being stretched around the perimeter of the wafer, 18 at 58), the stretching applying transverse forces to a surface of the dicing tape opposite the wafer that cause the perforations in the wafer to break the wafer into separate dies (see discussion of fig 8 disclosing the dome causing breakages once stretched); and
packaging the dies of the wafer in integrated circuit (IC) chips (see step 106 disclosing packaging).
Regarding claim 15, Mckenna discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the transverse forces induce non- uniform lateral forces across a thickness of the wafer (see col 3. Ln 15-20 disclosing independently controlled forces).
Regarding claim 16, Mckenna discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the breaking of the perforations causes the dies of the wafer to separate (see discussion of kerfs).
Regarding claim 19, Mckenna discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the wafer is formed of silicon see col 5, ln 45-55, disclosing silicon wafer.
Regarding claim 20, Mckenna discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the transverse forces result in application of more lateral force to a top region of the dies than to a bottom region, see figs .
Regarding claim 26, Mckenna discloses the method of Claim 14, wherein the plurality of dies are removable from the dicing tape after the transverse forces applied to the surface of the dicing tape are withdrawn and further discloses singulation (see col 6, ln 10-50).
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §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.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Mckenna and further in view of Chin (US 20050101109 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Mckenna discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the wafer has a monocrystalline structure and the perforations have a polycrystalline structure (see claims 6 and 12 disclosing laser ablating).
Mckenna and Chin are in the same or similar fields of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the present application to combine Mckenna and Chin. Mckenna and Chin may be combined by forming the kerfs of Mckenna with laser ablating, as taught in Chin. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Mckenna and Chin in order to make precision kerfs.
Regarding claim 18, Mckenna discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the perforations are formed with a lasing process(see claims 6 and 12, see laser ablating).
Mckenna and Chin are in the same or similar fields of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the present application to combine Mckenna and Chin. Mckenna and Chin may be combined by forming the kerfs of Mckenna with laser ablating, as taught in Chin. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Mckenna and Chin in order to make precision kerfs.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Mckenna and further in view of Clawson (US 20080305616 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Yang discloses the method of Claim 14, Clemson further discloses wherein the perforations are scribed in a wafer after the wafer has undergone back-grind processing to reduce a thickness of the wafer. It would have been obvious to combine Yang and Clawson. Yang and Clawson may be combined by forming the device of Yang in accordance with Clawson to thin the substrate prior to singulation/perforation One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to combine Yang and Clawson in order to facilitate singulation by reducing necessary processing resources/time to score a thinner layer, i.e. efficiency, (see figs 4-6, see para [0031] of Clawson).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13, 21, 22, 24, 25 contain allowable subject matter. In particular, the cited art do not disclose attaching a first side of the wafer to a back grind tape; back grinding a second side of the wafer after attaching the first side of the wafer to the back grind tape and scribing perforations in the wafer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD CHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1827. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at (571) 270-3042. 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.
/EDWARD CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights