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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KAWAGUCHI et al. (JP2020088101).
Regarding claim 1, KAWAGUCHI teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising:
a reformed layer former 60 configured to partially reform a first substrate W to form a reformed layer (M1, C1) between a first portion (Wc) and a second portion (We) in the first substrate W (see Fig. 1-4, Fig. 6-8, Fig. 16-18, 19-20, Fig. 26 and associated texts);
a peeling layer former configured to form a peeling layer F between the second portion We and a second substrate S provided on a surface of the first substrate W (see Fig. 1-4, Fig. 6-8, Fig. 16-18, 19-20, Fig. 26 and associated texts); and
a remover 61 configured to remove the second portion (We) from a surface of the second substrate S while causing the first portion (Wc) to remain on the surface of the second substrate S, wherein the remover comprises:
a heater (e.g. 153/341) configured to heat the first portion (Wc) or the second portion We, to peel the second portion (We) from the second substrate S at the peeling layer F and divide the first portion Wc and the second portion (We) from each other (see Fig. 1-4, Fig. 6-8, Fig. 16-18, 19-22, Fig. 26 and associated texts) and
a mover 70 configured to move the second substrate S and the first portion Wc relative to the second portion We, by raising the second substrate S and the first portion (Wc) (see Fig. 24, where the mover 71 has raised the second substrate S and the first portion Wc), to remove the second portion (We) from the surface of the second substrate S while causing the first portion (Wc) to remain on the surface of the second substrate S (Fig. 27 & Fig. 26-Fig. 28, wherein the second portion We is removed from the second substrate S while the first portion Wc remains on the surface of the second substrate S).
Regarding claim 2, KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the second portion We has a ring shape that surrounds the first portion Wc (Fig. 1-4, Fig. 6-8, Fig. 16-1, 19-22, Fig. 26 and associated texts).
Regarding claim 3, KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the reformed layer former partially reforms the first substrate W by a laser (Fig. 1-4, Fig. 6-8, Fig. 16-18, 19-22, Fig. 26 and associated texts).
Regarding claim 4, KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the peeling layer is formed in the second portion and is not formed in the first portion (Fig. 1-4, Fig. 6-8, Fig. 16-18, 19-20, Fig. 26 and associated texts).
Regarding claim 5, KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the peeling layer former forms the peeling layer by a laser (Fig. 1-4, Fig. 6-8, Fig. 16-18, 19-22, Fig. 26 and associated texts).
Regarding claim 6, KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the heater heats the first portion or the second portion such that a temperature of the second portion becomes higher than a temperature of the first portion (Fig. 1-4, Fig. 6-8, Fig. 16-22, Fig. 26 and associated texts (e.g. Para [0097).
Regarding claim 8, KAWAGUCHI teaches he apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the heater has a ring shape in planar view (Fig. 1-4, Fig. 6-8, Fig. 16-22, Fig. 26 and associated texts).
Regarding claim 10, KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the mover comprises a first holder 200 configured to hold the second substrate S, a second holder 321/322 configured to hold the first portion Wc, and a third holder 210 configured to hold the second portion (e.g. Fig. 19-20).
Regarding claim 11, KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of Claim 10, wherein the first holder comprises a mechanism that cools the second substrate (e.g. para [0097]).
Regarding claim 12, KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of Claim 10, wherein the second holder comprises a mechanism that cools the first portion (Para [0097]).
Regarding claim 13, KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of Claim 10, wherein the third holder comprises the heater that heats the second portion (Para [0096]).
Regarding claim 14, KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of Claim 10, wherein the third holder has a ring shape that surrounds the second holder (note the ring shaped components in Fig. 1-4, Fig. 6-14, Fig. 15-18, 19-22, Fig. 26 and associated texts.
Regarding claim 15, KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising a carrying mechanism (e.g. 210-212) that carries the second portion We peeled from the second substrate (Fig. 11-14).
Regarding claim 20, KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the mover removes the second portion from the surface of the second substrate in a state where the second portion has a ring shape (e.g. note the ring shape of the second portion We in Fig. 8 & Fig. 24-27).
Regarding claim 16, KAWAGUCHI teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising:
a heater (e.g. 153/341) configured to heat a first portion (Wc) or a second portion (We) in a first substrate W provided on a surface of a second substrate S, to divide the first portion (We) and the second portion from each other; and
a mover 70/71 configured to move the second substrate S and the first portion (Wc) relative to the second portion We (see Fig. 24), by lifting the second substrate S and the first portion (Wc) (see Fig. 24, where the mover 71 has lifted the second substrate S and the first portion Wc), to remove the second portion (We) from the surface of the second substrate S while causing the first portion (Wc) to remain on the surface of the second substrate S (Fig. 27 & Fig. 26-Fig. 28 and associated texts).
Regarding claim 17, KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of Claim 16, further comprising a reformed layer former 60 configured to partially reform the first substrate W to form a reformed layer (M1, C1) between the first portion Wc and the second portion (We) in the first substrate, wherein the heater heats the first portion or the second portion after the reformed layer is formed (Fig. 27 & Fig. 26-Fig. 28, wherein the second portion We is removed from the second substrate S while the first portion Wc remains on the surface of the second substrate S).
Regarding claim 18, KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of Claim 16, further comprising a peeling layer former configured to form a peeling layer F between the second portion (We) and the second substrate S, wherein the heater heats the first portion or the second portion, to peel the second portion (We) from the second substrate S at the peeling layer and divide the first portion Wc and the second portion (We) from each other (Fig. 1-4, Fig. 6-8, Fig. 16-18, 19-22, Fig. 26 and associated texts).
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.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAWAGUCHI as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of TACHIOKIA et al. (US PUB. 2015/0380292).
Regarding claim 7, while KAWAGUCHI teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the heater heats the first portion (Wc) or the second portion (We); however, perhaps in the interest of brevity, KAWAGUCHI is silent on that a difference between a temperature of the first portion and a temperature of the second portion becomes 200 ºC to 400 ºC. Nonetheless, the Examiner understands that said claim feature would have been obvious in the semiconductor art. For instance, TACHIOKIA teaches a temperature of approximately 200 ºC to separate/divide semiconductor device components (Para [0029]). As such, said claim dimension would have been obvious and within the ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. And it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Contrary to Applicant’s argument, KAWAGUCHI teaches in Fig. 24-27, wherein a mover 71 is configured to move the second substrate S and the first portion (Wc) relative to the second portion We (see Fig. 24), by lifting the second substrate S and the first portion (Wc) (see Fig. 24, where the mover 71 has lifted the second substrate S and the first portion Wc), to remove the second portion (We) from the surface of the second substrate S while causing the first portion (Wc) to remain on the surface of the second substrate S (Fig. 27 & Fig. 26-Fig. 28 and associated texts). As such, the argument is not found to be persuasive3.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOR KARIMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/TIMOR KARIMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818