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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide (US 2020/0086450, previously cited) in view of Miyamoto (JP 2018-027594, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Ide teaches a substrate grinding device comprising: a work table (20); a first grinding wheel (15); and a second grinding wheel (11), a standby stage (23), and a grinding stage (24), wherein an abrasive grain size of the second grinding wheel is smaller than an abrasive grain size of the first grinding wheel ([0026]; particle size of second grinding wheel is smaller than particle size of first grinding wheel), the work table is configured to rotate while sucking and holding a substrate ([0021], [0036]; fig 1; substrate 30), the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel are cup grinding wheels (shown in fig 3; [0039-0040]), and provided at positions where the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel can be simultaneously in contact with the substrate which is rotating ([0041], [0051]), the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel being configured to grind the substrate which is rotating, while the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel are rotating ([0041], both wheels and substrate are rotating), the standby stage is a stage dedicated to fixing the substrate to the work table before grinding and removing the substrate from the work table after grinding ([0034]), the substrate, once fixed on the work table, is conveyed together with the work table to the grinding stage (indicated by arrow in fig 1; [0036-0037]) and remains held on the work table while both a rough grinding and a finish grinding of the same substrate are performed at the grinding stage by the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel ([0038], [0041]), the work table is provided so that the substrate can be conveyed by moving substantially horizontally between the standby stage and the grinding stage ([0036]) and can further be moved substantially horizontally on the grinding stage to shift a rotation center of the substrate from a first grinding position where the rotation center of the substrate is within a grinding range of the first grinding wheel (as shown in fig 2, rotation center 21 of substrate must pass through a first position in a grinding range of first grinding wheel 15 on its way to second grinding position) to a second grinding position where the rotation center of the same substrate is within a grinding range of the second grinding wheel (position shown in fig 2), and the substrate grinding device further comprises a control panel (25) configured to control processing of the substrate grinding device ([0043]), the processing including: moving the work table and performing the rough grinding of the substrate by the first grinding wheel (fig 4), and after performing the rough grinding, performing grinding with the second grinding wheel (fig 6) while the rotation center of the substrate is at the second grinding position (as shown in fig 6), wherein the rotation center of the substrate is moved with respect to the grinding stage in a horizontal feed direction different from an arrangement direction in which a diameter direction of the first grinding wheel is aligned with a diameter direction of the second grinding wheel (as shown in fig 1, movement direction indicated by arrow is in a direction different from the diagonal arrangement direction along which the diameters grinding wheels are arranged) and stopping the movement of the work table at the second grinding position (as described in paragraphs [0061-0065] and shown in figs 5-6, the horizontal movement of the work table is stopped at the second grinding position during the finish grinding step).
Ide does not teach performing rough grinding only by the first grinding wheel while the rotation center of the substrate is stopped at the first grinding position, or explicitly describe moving the rotation center of the substrate with respect to the grinding stage after rough grinding to the second grinding position from the first grinding position and then stopping the movement of the work table at the second grinding position (although this movement capability is provided by the movability of the table described in [0036] and shown by the arrow in fig 1). Miyamoto teaches a substrate grinding device including a first grinding wheel (26) and a second grinding wheel (37), the device controlled to process a substrate by moving the device such that the substrate is at a first grinding position and then stopped at the first grinding position (held in position during rough grinding as described in paragraphs [0028-0029]), performing a rough grinding of the substrate only by the first grinding wheel ([0028]) while a rotation center (Wo) of the substrate is stopped at a first grinding position where the rotation center of the substrate is within a grinding range of the first grinding wheel ([0028]; first grinding wheel is “at a position passing through the center of the wafer”; fig 2), and after performing the rough grinding, moving the device from the first grinding position to a second grinding position where the rotation center of the substrate is within a grinding range of the second grinding wheel and then stopped at the second grinding position (as described [0032-0033], the device is moved to the second position and stopped there for the finish grinding; fig 3). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform rough grinding only by the first grinding wheel of Ide at the first position where the rotation center of the substrate is stopped within a grinding range of the first grinding wheel, and after performing the rough grinding, move the rotation center of the substrate with respect to the grinding stage by the movable work table of Ide to the second grinding position and stopped, as providing distinct first and second grinding positions and steps allowing each of the grinding wheels to grind the entire surface of the substrate and allowing the individual grinding wheels to be dressed while the other grinding wheel is simultaneously being used for grinding, thus allowing the next grinding step to be performed efficiently without waiting for an additional dressing step as taught by Miyamoto ([0031], [0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Ide, as modified by Miyamoto, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ide further teaches the substrate grinding device is configured such that grinding of the substrate by the first grinding wheel is performed in a state where the rotation center of the substrate is located at the first grinding position (as a result of the modification based on Miyamoto described in the rejection of claim 1 above) and grinding of the substrate by the second grinding wheel is performed in a state where the rotation center of the substrate is located at the second grinding position (shown in figs 5-6 of Ide).
Regarding claim 3, Ide, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ide further teaches the substrate grinding device is configured to be able to grind the substrate simultaneously by the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel in a state where the rotation center of the substrate is located at the second grinding position (as shown in fig 4 of Ide).
Regarding claim 6, Ide, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ide further teaches the substrate (30) is rectangle (as shown in fig 1; note that the substrate itself is not a part of the claimed device and the device must only be capable of use with a rectangular substrate in order to meet the claims), the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel are arranged in a diagonal direction of the rectangle (arranged diagonally across substrate 30 as shown in fig 2), and the horizontal feed direction is parallel to a side of the rectangle (indicated by movement arrow in figs 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 7, Ide, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ide further teaches after moving the work table to the second grinding position and then stopping the movement at the second grinding position (movement described in the rejection of claim 1 above), grinding the substrate only by the second grinding wheel (as shown in fig 6).
Regarding claim 8, Ide, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ide further teaches the processing controlled by the control panel further includes: after moving the work table to the second grinding position and then stopping the movement of the work table at the second grinding position (movement described in rejection of claim 1 above, second position shown in figs 4-6 of Ide), grinding the substrate simultaneously by the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel (as shown in fig 4) while rotating the work table, rotating the substrate held on the work table, and simultaneously rotating the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel ([0041]), in the state where the rotation center of the substrate is located at the second grinding position (fig 4); and then further grinding the substrate by the second grinding wheel (11) with the first grinding wheel (15) separated from the substrate (figs 5-6; [0062-0063]).
Regarding claim 9, Ide, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ide further teaches the control panel is configured to control the work table to move within the grinding stage such that the substrate fixed on the work table is moved substantially horizontally on the grinding stage to shift the rotation center of the substrate from the first grinding position to the second grinding position (as indicated by arrow in fig 2; rotation center 21 of substrate must pass from first grinding position under first grinding wheel 15 before moving to second grinding position under second grinding wheel 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 Jul 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Ide and Miyamoto do not teach the claimed moving and stopping of the work table at the first and second grinding positions as claimed. However, as detailed in the rejection above, this is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Ide and Miyamoto. Specifically, Ide explicitly teaches moving and stopping the work table at the second position, as shown in figs 5 and 6. While Ide does teach first stopping at the first grinding position where the rotation center of the substrate is within a grinding range of the first grinding wheel, this is rendered obvious by Ide, which explicitly teaches stopping to grind at the two claimed distinct grinding positions as shown in figures two and three. When these teachings applied to the device of Miyamoto, the work table of Miyamoto, which is already capable of the claimed movements would be configured to stop for rough grinding at the first grinding position, and subsequently move to and stop at the second grinding position for finish grinding as already recited in Miyamoto. Therefore, the prior art as a whole renders obvious all the elements of the claimed invention, contrary to applicant’s arguments.
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 MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
