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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/07/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 7 and 10 has/have been amended; no claim(s) has/have been cancelled and new claim(s) 15-17 has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-7 and 9-14 are presently pending in this application.
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 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) 7, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondou et al (US 2014/0014644) in view of Orihira et al (US 5,685,363).
Regarding claim 7, Kondou discloses a hot plate configured to heat a semiconductor wafer having a ring- shaped rib at an outer circumferential edge thereof, the semiconductor wafer having a thickness greater at the rib than that at a center thereof, the hot plate comprising:
a heater (Fig. 1A #20 resistance-heating element);
a base (Fig. 1A #10 ceramic base) having the heater (Fig. 1A #20 resistance-heating element) therein, the base (Fig. 1A #10 ceramic base) having an heating upper surface (Fig. 1A #10A heating surface) configured to face a first protective film on a back surface of the semiconductor wafer and a second protective film covering an outer circumferential edge of the first protective film and an outer circumference of the rib, the upper surface (Fig. 1A #10A heating surface) of the base forming a heating surface, the heater (Fig. 1A #20 resistance-heating element) being configured to directly heat the first protective film and the second protective film through the heating surface;
However, Kondou does not disclose a resin film formed on the heating surface, the resin film being configured to prevent at least a part of the second protective film from directly contacting the heating surface.
Nonetheless, Orihira in the same field of endeavor being semiconductor processing devices, teaches a resin film (Fig. 1 #12 fluororesin sheet) formed on the heating surface, the resin film (Fig. 1 #12 fluororesin sheet) being configured to prevent at least a part of the second protective film from directly contacting the heating surface (Examiner notes that the phrase “configured to prevent at least a part of the second protective film from directly contacting the heating surface” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Orihira can perform the intended function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
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 hot plate of Kondou by incorporating the fluororesin sheet as taught by Orihira for the benefit of increased contact area with the substrate. (Orihira Col. 1 lines 52-55)
Regarding claim 9, Kondou in view of Orihira teaches the hot plate as appears above (see the rejection of claim 7), and Orihira teaches wherein the resin film (Fig. 1 #12 fluororesin sheet) contains a fluorinated resin.
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 hot plate of Kondou in view of Orihira by incorporating the fluororesin sheet as taught by Orihira for the benefit of the higher thermal-conductivity, mechanical strength, and heat resistance of metal.
Regarding claim 10, Kondou discloses a hot plate configured to heat a semiconductor wafer having a ring-shaped rib at an outer circumferential edge thereof, the semiconductor wafer having a thickness greater at the rib than that at a center thereof, the hot plate comprising:
a heater (Fig. 1A #20 resistance-heating element);
a base having the heater therein, the base having an upper surface (Fig. 1A #10A heating surface) configured to face a first protective film on a back surface of the semiconductor wafer and a second protective film covering an outer circumferential edge of the first protective film and an outer circumference of the rib, the upper surface of the base forming a heating surface;
wherein the heater (Fig. 1A #20 resistance-heating element) is configured to heat the first protective film and the second protective film through the heating surface, and wherein the heating surface (Fig. 1A #10A heating surface) has a circular convex portion (Shown in Fig. 1A) having an outer diameter smaller than a diameter at an inner circumference side of the rib, such that the circular convex portion fits into an inner side of the rib (Applicant does not claim any specific dimensions for the heating surface. The heating surface can be made to fit an inner side of a wafer.)
((Examiner notes that the phrase “heating surface configured to face a first protective film on a back surface of the semiconductor wafer and a second protective film covering an outer circumferential edge of the first protective film and an outer circumference of the rib and the heater being configured to directly heat the first protective film and the second protective film through the heating surface” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Kondou can perform the intended function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
However, Kondou does not disclose a resin film formed on the heating surface, the resin film being configured to prevent at least a part of the second protective film from directly contacting the heating surface.
Nonetheless, Orihira in the same field of endeavor being semiconductor processing devices, teaches a resin film (Fig. 1 #12 fluororesin sheet) formed on the heating surface, the resin film being configured to prevent at least a part of the second protective film from directly contacting the heating surface (Examiner notes that the phrase “configured to prevent at least a part of the second protective film from directly contacting the heating surface” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Orihira can perform the intended function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
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 hot plate of Kondou by incorporating the fluororesin sheet as taught by Orihira for the benefit of increased contact area with the substrate. (Orihira Col. 1 lines 52-55)
Regarding claim 12, Kondou in view of Orihira teaches the hot plate as appears above(see the rejection of claim 10), and Kondou teaches wherein the heating surface has a spherical shape having a convex-shaped upper part to correspond to a projection shape of an upper part of the semiconductor wafer (Abstract ---“A substrate heater is provided including a plate-shaped ceramic base having a first side defining a convex heating surface on at least a portion of which a substrate is placed, a resistance-heating element embedded in the ceramic base, and a tubular member joined to a central portion on an opposed second side of the ceramic base.”).
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondou et al (US 2014/0014644; Fig. 1A first embodiment) in view of Orihira et al (US 5,685,363) as applied to claim 10, further in view of Kondou et al (US 2014/0014644; Fig. 2B second embodiment).
Regarding claim 11, Kondou (first embodiment) and Orihira teaches the hot plate as appears above (see the rejection of claim 10), but does not teach further comprising a groove on an upper surface of the circular convex portion, and a communicating hole formed in the groove and penetrating through the hot plate.
Nonetheless, Kondou (second embodiment) teaches further comprising a groove on an upper surface of the circular convex portion (Fig. 2B #73 adsorption holes), and a communicating hole (Shown in the figure below) formed in the groove and penetrating through the hot plate.
PNG
media_image1.png
358
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 hot plate of Kondou (first embodiment) in view of Orihira by incorporating the groove and communicating hole as taught by Kondou (second embodiment) for the benefit of fixing the substrate to the heating surface.
Regarding claim 17, Kondou (first embodiment) in view of Orihira teaches the hot plate as appears above(see the rejection of claim 10), and Kondou (first embodiment) teaches wherein the heating surface (Fig. 1A #10A heating surface) has the circular convex portion (Shown in figure 1A) at a center thereof and the circular convex portion (Shown in figure 1A) has a planar surface parallel to the planar surface of the peripheral portion at a center thereof (Shown in figure 1B).
However, Kondou (first embodiment) does not teach a peripheral portion at a periphery thereof, the peripheral portion has a planar surface to be parallel to a surface of the semiconductor wafer.
Nonetheless, Kondou (second embodiment) teaches a peripheral portion at a periphery thereof, the peripheral portion has a planar surface to be parallel to a surface of the semiconductor wafer.
PNG
media_image2.png
388
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 hot plate of Kondou (first embodiment) in view of Orihira by incorporating the peripheral portion having a planar surface as taught by Kondou (second embodiment) for the benefit of facilitating maintenance of a vacuum state.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondou et al (US 2014/0014644) in view of Orihira et al (US 5,685,363) as applied to claim 7, further in view of Akiba et al (US 2014/0014644).
Regarding claim 13, Kondou in view of Orihira teaches the hot plate as appears above (see the rejection of claim 7) but does not teach further comprising a forcing pin configured to be positioned immediately below the rib for pushing the semiconductor wafer away from the heating surface.
Nonetheless, Akiba in the same field of endeavor being semiconductor processing devices teaches further comprising a forcing pin configured to be positioned immediately below the rib for pushing the semiconductor wafer away from the heating surface ([0038] lines 1-3 ---" The face plate 3 has three through holes 30 each for an elevating pin (not shown) that moves the wafer W up and down.”).
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 hot plate of Kondou in view of Orihira by incorporating the forcing pins as taught by Akiba for the benefit of moving the wafer up or down to maintain temperature.
Regarding claim 14, Kondou in view of Orihira teaches the hot plate as appears above (see the rejection of claim 7) but does not teach wherein the upper surface of the base is larger in area than the back surface of the semiconductor wafer in a plan view of the hot plate.
However, Akiba teaches that he size and shape of the ceramic base and the shaft are not particularly limited (Col. 9 lines 35-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the upper surface of the base being larger in area than the back surface of the semiconductor wafer in a plan view of the hot plate, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondou et al (US 2014/0014644) in view of Orihira et al (US 5,685,363) as applied to claim 7, further in view of Nagata et al (US 6,660,980).
Regarding claim 15, Kondou in view of Orihira teaches the hot plate as appears above (see the rejection of claim 7) but does not teach wherein the resin film has a thickness in a range of 20 µm to 50 µm.
Nonetheless, Nagata in the same field of endeavor being electric heating devices teaches wherein the resin film has a thickness in a range of 20 µm to 50 µm (Col. 5 lines 59-60 ---" The thickness of the heat-resistant resin layer is preferably 0.01-50 .mu.m.”).
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 hot plate of Kondou in view of Orihira by incorporating the resin film having a thickness in a range of 20 µm to 50 µm as taught by Nagata, since it has been held that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondou et al (US 2014/0014644) in view of Orihira et al (US 5,685,363) as applied to claim 10, further in view of Nagata et al (US 6,660,980).
Regarding claim 16, Kondou in view of Orihira teaches the hot plate as appears above (see the rejection of claim 10) but does not teach wherein the resin film has a thickness in a range of 20 µm to 50 µm.
Nonetheless, Nagata in the same field of endeavor being electric heating devices teaches wherein the resin film has a thickness in a range of 20 µm to 50 µm (Col. 5 lines 59-60 ---" The thickness of the heat-resistant resin layer is preferably 0.01-50 .mu.m.”).
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 hot plate of Kondou in view of Orihira by incorporating the resin film having a thickness in a range of 20 µm to 50 µm as taught by Nagata, since it has been held that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowed.
The cited prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention as a whole.
For independent claim 1:
The claimed invention is a semiconductor device manufacturing method comprising: forming a ring-shaped rib at an outer circumferential edge of a semiconductor wafer by grinding a center of a back surface of the semiconductor wafer, so that the rib has a thickness greater than a thickness of the center of the semiconductor wafer; pasting a first protective film on the back surface of the semiconductor wafer; pasting a second protective film so as to cover an outer circumferential edge of the first protective film and an outer circumference of the rib; positioning the back surface of the semiconductor wafer so as to face a heating surface
of a hot plate and directly heating the first protective film and the second protective film by using the hot plate; and performing a plating treatment on a surface of the semiconductor wafer.
The closest prior art would be Sakaguchi et al (US 2014/0120716). Sakaguchi teaches a semiconductor device manufacturing method comprising: forming a ring- shaped rib at an outer circumferential edge of a semiconductor wafer by grinding a center of a back surface of the semiconductor wafer, so that the rib has a thickness greater than a thickness of the center of the semiconductor wafer; pasting a first protective film on the back surface of the semiconductor wafer; pasting a second protective film so as to cover an outer circumferential edge of the first protective film and an outer circumference of the rib; and performing a plating treatment on a surface of the semiconductor wafer.
However, Sakaguchi does not teach positioning the back surface of the semiconductor wafer so as to face a heating surface of a hot plate and directly heating the first protective film and the second protective film by using the hot plate.
Response to Arguments
For claim 10:
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “the resin film configured to prevent at least a part of the second protective film from directly contacting the heating surface,” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
For claim 7:
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach “a resin film formed on the heating surface”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Orihira teaches a resin film formed on the surface of a base. The combination of Kondou and Orihira teaches the resin film being formed on the heating surface. See the rejection of claim 7.
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 JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights