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 .
This Office action is in response to amendments filed on 03/05/2026. Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 22-25 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 11, 19, and 21 are allowed.
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.
Claims 5, 14, and 16 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.
Claims 5 and 14 both recite the limitation "adjacent the curved surface" in the last line of the claim(s). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is unclear to the Examiner whether applicant intended for additional structure to be recited (--[[the]]a curved surface), or whether the claim intended to require the back surface of the workpiece to be adjacent to the outer peripheral portion (--the outer peripheral portion--), which was introduced in claim 2 (which claims 5 and 14 depend from). As best understood and for examination purposes, the curved portion is additional structure to the workpiece (--[[the]]a curved surface--) in both claims 5 and 14.
Claim 16 is rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b) since it is dependent on claim 14.
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.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu (KR 20180131389) in view of Broekaart (US 2011/0097874).
Regarding claim 2, Koshimizu (KR 20180131389) discloses an edge trimming method (figs. 1-6; pp. [0013] in NPL) for cutting an outer peripheral portion (designated in annotated fig. 3 below; pp. [0006]) of a workpiece (item W; figs. 1-6), formed of a semiconductor material (pp. [0002]; workpiece is defined as a wafer, on which devices such as ICs and LSIs are formed on the surface, e.g. semiconductor devices) and including a plurality of devices thereon (pp. [0002] and [0014]; not explicitly shown; in each area of the dividing lines, i.e. lattice structure, a device is formed), having a chamfered part (item Wc; pp. [0006]; figs. 1-3) on the outer peripheral portion, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
238
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3.
a holding step (via suction-holding; pp. [0016]; fig. 2) of holding the workpiece on a holding surface (defined as upper surface of item 11; figs. 2-3) of a chuck table (item 11; figs. 2-3); and
a processing step (pp. [0016]; figs. 2-3) of, after the holding step, concurrently performing relatively moving a rotating cutting blade (item 12; fig. 2) and the chuck table to cause the cutting blade to cut into the outer peripheral portion of the workpiece (in position of fig. 2, both chuck table 11 and cutting blade 12 are rotated, wafer 11 is held into place via holding, and blade cuts the peripheral portion), rotating the chuck table (pp. [0016]; chuck table 11 is rotated while cutting blade 12 is rotated),
wherein, in the processing step, a stepped region is formed (item Wd; pp. [0016]; fig. 3), within the semiconductor material, on the outer peripheral portion of the workpiece (fig. 3), with a thickness increasing from an outermost peripheral edge toward an inner side of the workpiece (thickness increases from outermost peripheral edge toward an inner side, i.e. center, of workpiece W; figs. 2-3), and
Koshimizu does not explicitly disclose in the processing step, moving the cutting blade in a direction of an axis of rotation of the cutting blade such that the cut depth is gradually decreased over time, and wherein at least three steps are formed within the workpiece by the processing step.
However, Broekaart (US 2011/0097874) teaches an edge trimming method (pp. [0029]; figs. 2A-2E) for cutting an outer peripheral portion (defined as outer peripheral edge of item 100; figs. 2D-2E) of a workpiece (item 100; figs. 2A-2E) having a chamfered part (pp. [0036]; figs. 2A-2E) on the outer peripheral portion, the method comprising
a processing step (defined as steps within figs. 2C-2E) of moving a rotating cutting blade (not explicitly shown; pp. [0038]; defined as grinder or any other tool that is capable of mechanically wearing away the material of the workpiece layer) to cause the cutting blade to cut into the outer peripheral portion of the workpiece (pp. [0038]) and moving the cutting blade in a direction of an axis of rotation of the cutting blade (defined as moving cutting blade towards center of workpiece, i.e. along direction of axis of rotation corresponding to cutting blade utilized in Koshimizu) such that the cut depth is gradually decreased over time (pp. [0017], [0032], [0039]; fig. 2E, the cut depth, i.e. Pd1 and Pd2, are decreased over time, i.e. as moving towards the center of workpiece), and a bottom surface (designated in annotated fig. 2E below) of a stepped region (defined as region of outer peripheral edge; figs. 2D-2E) helically formed over a plurality of steps (steps defined as Pd1, Pd2, which are helically formed as helical is a three-dimensional curve that turns around an axis at a constant or varying distance while moving parallel to the axis; therefore, the plurality of steps are annularly formed around the center of workpiece and progressively cut steps towards the center of the workpiece thereby, creating a helically formation in plan view, i.e. above view), wherein the plurality of steps includes at least three steps (not explicitly shown; pp. [0032]; the method may include four trimming steps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the edge trimming method, as disclosed in Koshimizu, to include a moving step, wherein at least three steps are formed in a stepped region of the workpiece in a helical formation, as taught in Broekaart, in order to further limit heating and stresses during trimming (Broekaart; pp. [0011-0012] and [0032]).
PNG
media_image2.png
274
611
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2E.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Koshimizu as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, further comprising:
a grinding step (pp. [0020] figs. 4-5) of using a grinding wheel (item 25; pp. [0020]; figs. 4-5) to grind a back surface of the workpiece (item Wb; pp. [0020]; fig. 4) to reduce the thickness of the workpiece (pp. [0020]; grinding wheel 25 thins the wafer from the back surface Wb to the finished thickness), wherein the grinding step is performed after the processing step (pp. [0020-0021]; grinding step is performed after processing step and the plurality of steps are formed, as modified from Broekaart above, in order to thin workpiece to finished thickness, i.e. steps are removed; fig. 5), wherein the back surface of the workpiece is adjacent a curved surface (back surface Wb is adjacent curved surface, i.e. outer curved edge of workpiece W).
Regarding claim 7, Koshimizu as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein: the chamfered part includes a curved surface when viewed in plan (pp. [0016]; when viewed in plan, the chamfered part Wc of workpiece has a circular shape along the peripheral edge); and
after performing the processing step, at least a portion of the curved surface of the chamfered part remains adjacent to the stepped region (after the plurality of steps are formed, as modified from Broekaart above, a portion of curved surface of chamfered part is next to stepped region; designated in annotated fig. 2E of Broekaart above; corresponding to curved surface of chamfered part Wc in Koshimizu, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Koshimizu as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 7, wherein a diameter of the curved surface is greatest at the outermost peripheral edge (outermost peripheral edge is the furthest, i.e. outermost, extending portion of workpiece W and thereby, the largest diameter; fig. 3), and decreases from the outermost peripheral edge to a back surface (item Wb; figs. 1-3) of the workpiece (diameter decreases from outermost peripheral edge to back surface of workpiece Wb, i.e. decreases when moving along chamfered part Wc towards back surface Wb).
Regarding claim 12, Koshimizu as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the plurality of steps of the stepped region includes at least four steps (as modified by Broekaart above; pp. [0032]; not explicitly shown, stepped region includes four steps).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Koshimizu as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, further comprising:
a grinding step (pp. [0020] figs. 4-5) of using a grinding wheel (item 25; pp. [0020]; figs. 4-5) to grind a back surface of the workpiece (item Wb; pp. [0020]; fig. 4) to reduce the thickness of the workpiece (pp. [0020]; grinding wheel 25 thins the wafer from the back surface Wb to the finished thickness), wherein the grinding step is performed after the processing step upon the workpiece that includes the stepped region (pp. [0020-0021]; grinding step is performed after processing step and the plurality of steps are formed, as modified from Broekaart above, in order to thin workpiece to finished thickness, i.e. steps are removed; fig. 5), wherein the back surface of the workpiece is adjacent a curved surface (back surface Wb is adjacent curved surface, i.e. outer curved edge of workpiece W).
Regarding claim 16, Koshimizu as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the plurality of steps of the stepped region includes at least four steps (as modified by Broekaart above; pp. [0032]; not explicitly shown; stepped region includes four steps).
Regarding claim 18, Koshimizu as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of steps is of a thickness that is less than a total thickness of the workpiece (Broekaart; each step defines thickness Pd1, Pd2 that is less than total thickness of workpiece) , wherein the total thickness of the workpiece is defined as a distance between a front surface of the workpiece and a back surface of the workpiece (designated in annotated fig. 2E of Broekaart above).
Regarding claim 20, Koshimizu (KR 20180131389) discloses a processing method (figs. 1-6; pp. [0013] in NPL) of a workpiece (item W; figs. 1-6) including an edge trimming step (pp. [0016]; figs. 1-3) of cutting an outer peripheral portion (designated in annotated fig. 3 above; pp. [0006]) of the workpiece having a chamfered part (item Wc; pp. [0006]; figs. 1-6) on the outer peripheral portion, wherein the chamfered part includes a curved surface when viewed in plan (pp. [0016]; when viewed in plan, the chamfered part Wc of workpiece has a circular shape along the peripheral edge), the method comprising:
the edge trimming step (pp. [0016]; figs. 1-3); and
a grinding step (pp. [0020-0021]; figs. 4-5) after the edge trimming step (pp. [0020]; grinding step is performed after the trimming step by a grinding device),
wherein the edge trimming step includes:
a holding step (via suction-holding; pp. [0016]; figs. 1-2) of holding the workpiece on a holding surface (upper surface of item 11; figs. 2-3) of a chuck table (item 11; figs. 2-3);
a cut in step (pp. [0016]; fig. 2) of, after the holding step, relatively moving a rotating cutting blade (item 12; fig. 2) and the chuck table to cause the cutting blade to cut into the outer peripheral portion of one surface of the workpiece (pp. [0016]; in position of fig. 2, both chuck table 11 and cutting blade 12 are rotated and wafer 11 is held into place in order for one surface of workpiece, i.e. top surface Wa of workpiece W, to be cut);
a cutting step (pp. [0016]; figs. 2-3) of, after the cut in step, rotating the chuck table and causing the outer peripheral portion of the one surface of the workpiece to be cut (once the cutting blade 12 is inserted into place, i.e. cut in step, the chuck table 11 and blade 12 are rotated to cut the chamfered peripheral portion), to form an annular step (item Wd; pp. [0016]; fig. 3);
the grinding step includes grinding the other surface of the workpiece (pp. [0020-0021]; defined as back surface Wb of the workpiece W; figs. 4-5), which is located opposite to the one surface of the workpiece (figs. 1-6), to reduce a thickness of the workpiece until removing the stepped region (pp. [0020-0021]; grinding step is performed to thin the workpiece to a finished thickness, i.e. chamfered portion which includes plurality of steps, as modified by Broekaart below, is completely removed; fig. 5),
wherein in the edge trimming step and the grinding step, the workpiece has a plurality of intersecting scribe lines on the one surface (not explicitly shown; pp. [0002] and [0014]; defined as dividing grid-like lines on one surface Wa) and has a device in each of a plurality of regions defined by the plurality of intersecting scribe lines (pp. [0002] and [0014]; not explicitly shown; in each area of the dividing lines, i.e. intersecting scribe lines, a device is formed).
Koshimizu does not disclose a moving step of, after the cutting step, moving the cutting blade in a direction of an axis of rotation of the cutting blade to form another annular step adjacent to the first-mentioned annular step, wherein the cut in step, the cutting step, and the moving step are repeated in this order, with a thickness increasing from an outermost peripheral edge toward an inner side of the workpiece, and a stepped region is formed on the outer peripheral portion such that at least a portion of the curved surface of the chamfered part remains adjacent to the stepped region.
However, Broekaart (US 2011/0097874) teaches an edge trimming method (pp. [0029]; figs. 2A-2E) for cutting an outer peripheral portion (defined as outer peripheral edge of item 100; figs. 2D-2E) of a workpiece (item 100; figs. 2A-2E) having a chamfered part (pp. [0036]; figs. 2A-2E) on the outer peripheral portion, the method comprising
a cut in step (defined as step of placing a cutting blade into position, i.e. at peripheral portion) of relatively moving a rotating cutting blade (not explicitly shown; pp. [0038]; defined as grinder or any other tool that is capable of mechanically wearing away the material of the workpiece layer) to cause the cutting blade to cut into the outer peripheral portion of the workpiece (pp. [0038]);
a cutting step (pp. [0039]; fig. 2D) of causing the outer peripheral portion to be cut to form an annular step (fig. 2D; item Pd1 step on workpiece 100);
a moving step (defined as step of cutting blade moving towards center of workpiece 100, i.e. distance of item Id2, fig. 2E) of, after the cutting step, moving the cutting blade in a direction of an axis of rotation of the cutting blade (defined as moving cutting blade towards center of workpiece, i.e. along direction of axis of rotation corresponding to cutting blade utilized in Koshimizu ) to form another annular step (pp. [0041]; item Pd2 on workpiece 100; fig. 2E) adjacent to the first-mentioned annular step (both steps Pd1 and Pd2 are next to one another; fig. 2E),
wherein the cut in step, the cutting step, and the moving step are repeated in this order (pp. [0032]; not explicitly shown; the method may include four trimming steps, i.e. the process of forming Pd1 and Pd2 repeated) with a thickness increasing from an outermost peripheral edge toward an inner side of the workpiece (pp. [0032]; the trimming depth of each step is smaller than that of the preceding trimming step; thereby, the thickness increases towards the center of the workpiece 100; fig. 2E), and a stepped region is formed on the outer peripheral portion (fig. 2E) such that at least a portion of the curved surface of the chamfered part remains adjacent to the stepped region (designated in annotated fig. 2E above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the edge trimming method, as disclosed in Koshimizu, to include a moving step to form another annular step and wherein the cut in step, the cutting step, and moving step are repeated in this order, as taught in Broekaart, in order to further limit heating and stresses during trimming (Broekaart; pp. [0011-0012] and [0032]).
Regarding claim 22, Koshimizu as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the workpiece comprises a disc-shaped wafer (pp. [0002]; workpiece is defined as a wafer, on which devices such as ICs and LSIs are formed on the surface, e.g. semiconductor devices).
Regarding claim 23, Koshimizu as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 20 , wherein the workpiece comprises a disc-shaped wafer formed of a semiconductor material (pp. [0002]; workpiece is defined as a wafer, on which devices such as ICs and LSIs are formed on the surface, e.g. semiconductor devices).
Regarding claim 24, Koshimizu as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the holding step is performed such that the plurality of devices are facing away from the holding surface of the chuck table (holding step, defined in position of workpiece and chuck table 11 in view of fig. 3, and plurality of devices are formed on surface Wa of wafer W which face away from upper surface of chuck table 11, i.e. holding surface; figs. 2-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 2 have been considered but are moot because they are addressing newly amended claim limitations, as compared to the rejection of record. Upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the same primary reference, Koshimizu (KR 20180131389), and the same teaching reference, Broekaart (US 2011/0097874).
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 with respect to claim 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in the Broekaart reference (secondary reference), “the wafer 202 with the devices thereon is not the wafer in which the stepped region is formed. Instead, the stepped region is formed in the support wafer 201, which lacks any device” (p. 12 of Remarks). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes the teaching reference, Broekaart, is utilized to teach in the repetitive moving, cut in, and cutting step to form at least three steps of the method step and is not utilized to teach in the structure of the workpiece. The structure of the workpiece with a plurality of devices and including a stepped region is disclosed in the primary reference, Koshimizu. Further, the Examiner notes in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention (e.g. “there is no teaching in the Broekaart reference of forming a stepped region in the wafer with the devices therein” on p. 12 of Remark), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the stepped region formed on the plurality of devices) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Therefore, the rejection of claim 20 remains in place.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 11, 19, and 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the art of record, Koshimizu (KR 20180131389) in view of Broekaart (US 2011/0097874), from Non-Final Rejection filed on 11/05/2025, discloses the recited claimed structure of an edge trimming method for cutting an outer peripheral portion of a workpiece, the method comprising: a holding step, a cut in step, a cutting step, a moving step of, after the cutting step, moving the cutting blade in a direction of an axis of rotation of the cutting blade to form another annular step, and wherein the cut in step, the cutting step, and the moving step are repeated in this order to perform the cut in step three times and at least three steps are formed on the outer peripheral portion, as described in p. 4-6 of Non-Final Rejection filed on 11/05/2025.
Koshimizu as modified by Broekaart, in further combination, does not teach, suggest, or make obvious, wherein the moving step is performed by moving the cutting blade in a radially outward direction, as required by the claim, in combination with all additional elements of the claim.
Claims 4, 11, 19, and 21 are allowed since they are dependent on claim 1.
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 25, the art of record, Koshimizu (KR 20180131389) in view of Broekaart (US 2011/0097874), discloses the method as claimed in claim 20. Koshimizu as modified by Broekaart, in further combination, does not teach, suggest, or make obvious, wherein the moving step is performed by moving the cutting blade in a radially outward direction, as required by the claim, in combination with all additional elements of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571)272-8548. 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.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights