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 .
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 12/05/2025, Claims 17-20 are newly added; claims 1-20 are pending, claims 13-16 remain withdrawn from consideration. The new claims 17-18 depend upon claim 13 so these claims are also withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-12 and 19-20 are examined in this office action.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 5 recites the limitation: “a vacuum system configured to hold the dicing tape to the upper surface by suction” because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “system” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “vacuum system” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. par.0015 discloses: “vacuum system comprises vacuum suction grooves and/or vacuum suction holes.”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta (US 20220102216 A1, newly cited) in view of Kitahara (US 2009/0215246A1)
Regarding claim 1, Furuta discloses
A chuck (310, see fig.7) for a laser beam wafer dicing equipment (300, See fig.7 and para.0055), the chuck comprising:
a wafer support plate (310, see fig.7) having an upper surface (upper surface of 310, see fig.7) for holding an undiced wafer (10, see fig.7 and para.0054-0055, the wafer 10 is undiced before being irradiated by the laser 320) disposed on a dicing tape (20, see fig.7).
Furuta also discloses “the wafer 10 is first held on the side of the front surface 12 thereof under suction on a holding surface 311 of the chuck table 310 via the front side tape 20” (see para.0054), but Furuta does not expressly disclose
wherein the upper surface comprises an annular groove that overlaps an edge of the undiced wafer when the undiced wafer disposed on the dicing tape is placed on the upper surface, wherein the wafer support plate comprises a ventilation channel configured to ventilate the annular groove.
Kitahara discloses A method for breaking an adhesive film mounted on the back of a wafer, comprising:
the upper surface (upper surface of 311 of Kitahara) comprises an annular groove (311c, see figs.5 and 9a-b of Kitahara) that overlaps an edge of the undiced wafer (undiced wafer 10 of Furuta) disposed on the dicing tape (T, see fig.9 of Furuta) is placed on the upper surface (upper surface of 311 of Kitahara. See fig.9b of Kitahara, the groove 311c of Kitahara overlaps an edge of the wafer 10 disposed on the dicing tape T placed on the upper surface of the table 311. Therefore, by incorporating the groove 311c of Kitahara into Furuta’s invention, the modification of Furuta in view of Kitahara has the groove 311c of Kitahara overlaps the undiced wafer 10 of Furuta when the undiced wafer of Furuta disposed on the dicing tape 20 of Furuta is placed on the upper surface of the table 310 of Furuta);
the wafer support plate (311 of Kitahara, see fig.9) comprises a ventilation channel (see ventilation channel in annotated fig.9b of Kitahara below) configured to ventilate the annular groove (311c of Kitahara, see figs.5-9a,b. the annotated ventilation channel communicates with the annular groove 311c so that the annotated ventilation channel ventilates the annular groove 311c).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
1383
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.9b of Kitahara
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the upper surface and wafer support plate of Furuta to comprise the annular groove and ventilation channel as taught by Kitahara so as the “annular groove that overlaps an edge of the undiced wafer when the undiced wafer disposed on the dicing tape is placed on the upper surface” and the “ventilation channel configured to ventilate the annular groove”. Doing so allows to “suction-hold the semiconductor wafer onto the chuck table via the wafer sticking region in the dicing tape” effectively during the machining which ensures precise positioning and stability of the wafer (see para.0063 of Kitahara).
Regarding claim 2, Furuta in view of Kitahara the entire wafer edge (see entire edge of the wafer 10 in fig.9b of Kitahara) projects radially beyond an inner edge of the annular groove (see inner edge of the annular groove 311c of Kitahara in annotated fig.9b below. See the rejections of claim 1 above, the annular groove 311c of Kitahara is included in the modification).
PNG
media_image2.png
532
1024
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.9b of Kitahara
Regarding claim 3, Furuta in view of Kitahara discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the annular groove has a width between 1 and 8 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the width of the annular groove to be between 1 and 8 mm since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Furuta in view of Kitahara teaches a certain width of the annular groove, and having a specific width “between 1 and 8 mm” is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the width of the annular groove is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation, for the purpose of optimizing the holding force and ensuring the wafer is perfectly flat during semiconductor manufacturing.
Regarding claim 4, Furuta in view of Kitahara discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the annular groove has a depth equal to or greater than 0.1 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the depth of the annular groove to be “equal to or greater than 0.1 mm” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Furuta in view of Kitahara teaches a certain depth of the annular groove, and having a specific width “equal to or greater than 0.1 mm” is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the depth of the annular groove is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation, for the purpose of optimizing the holding force and ensuring the wafer is perfectly flat during semiconductor manufacturing.
Regarding claim 5, Furuta further discloses the wafer support plate (310, see fig.7) comprises a vacuum system configured to hold the dicing tape (20) to the upper surface (upper surface of 310) by suction (see para.0054: “the wafer 10 is first held on the side of the front surface 12 thereof under suction on a holding surface 311 of the chuck table 310 via the front side tape 20”. Therefore, it is clear that the plate 310 of Furuta to comprises a vacuum system).
Regarding claim 10, Furuta further discloses A laser beam wafer dicing equipment (300, see fig.7), comprising:
the chuck (310, see fig.7) of claim 1; and
a laser unit (320, see fig.7) configured to produce a laser beam configured to cut the undiced wafer (10, see fig.7) into dies when passed over the undiced wafer (10, see fig.7).
Regarding claim 11, Furuta further discloses the laser unit comprises a pulse laser (See para.0056: “ pulsed laser beam 321”).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta in view of Kitahara as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Yoshiki (JP2018098403A)
Regarding claim 6, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the vacuum system comprises vacuum suction grooves and/or vacuum suction holes formed in the upper surface, wherein the vacuum suction grooves and/or vacuum suction holes are provided radially inside and radially outside the annular groove.
Yoshiki discloses a dicing apparatus, a chuck table, and a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
the vacuum system (combo 204 and 7-8, see fig.4 ) comprises vacuum suction grooves and/or vacuum suction holes (see vacuum suction holes in annotated fig.4 below) formed in the upper surface (see upper surface in annotated fig.4 below), wherein the vacuum suction grooves and/or vacuum suction holes (see vacuum suction holes in annotated fig.4 below) are provided radially inside and radially outside the annular groove (See annotated fig.4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
704
810
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.4 of Yoshiki
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the vacuum system of Furuta in view of Kitahara to comprise “vacuum suction holes formed in the upper surface, wherein the vacuum suction grooves and/or vacuum suction holes are provided radially inside and radially outside the annular groove” as taught by Yoshiki. Doing so allows “flapping of the wafer in the dicing step can be suppressed. Therefore, damage to the semiconductor device can be suppressed” (See para.0010 of Yoshiki)
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta in view of Kitahara as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Matsuhira (US20180350652A1)
Regarding claim 7, the modification discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth.
Furuta does not explicitly disclose base plate arranged below and spaced apart from the wafer support plate and an annular sealing disposed between the base plate and the wafer support plate, the annular sealing defining an inner vacuum region and an outer vented region between the base plate and the wafer support plate.
However, Kitahara further discloses a base plate (34, see fig.4) arranged below and spaced apart from the wafer support plate (311, see fig.9);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Furuta in view of Kitahara to incoporate the “base plate arranged below and spaced apart from the wafer support plate and an annular sealing disposed between the base plate and the wafer support plate” as taught by Kitahara. The base plate allows to hold the chuck table and moving means effectively (See para.0038 of Kitahara).
Furuta in view of Kitahara discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except an annular sealing disposed between the base plate and the wafer support plate, the annular sealing defining an inner vacuum region and an outer vented region between the base plate and the wafer support plate.
Nevertheless, Matsuhira discloses a conveyance hand for holding a conveyed object, comprising:
an annular sealing (4, see fig.3) disposed between the base plate (2, see fig.3) and the wafer support plate (1, see figs.3 and 6 and para.0032: “ O ring 4 is arranged between the base 2 and the pad 1”), the annular sealing (4, see fig.3) defining an inner vacuum region (see inner vacuum region in annotated fig.3 below) and an outer vented region (see outer vented region in annotated fig.3 below) between the base plate (2, see fig.3) and the wafer support plate (1, see figs.3 and 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
413
914
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.3 of Matsuhira
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Furuta in view of Kitahara’s invention to incorporate “an annular sealing disposed between the base plate and the wafer support plate, the annular sealing defining an inner vacuum region and an outer vented region between the base plate and the wafer support plate” as taught by Matsuhira. Doing so allows to prevent air from escaping, which is essential for consistent and reliable clamping force and ensuring the wafer is perfectly flat during semiconductor manufacturing.
Regarding claim 8, the modification discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the vacuum system of the wafer support plate is in communication with the inner vacuum region, and wherein the ventilation channel of the wafer support plate is in communication with the outer vented region.
Matsuhira further discloses the vacuum system (2a, see fig.3) of the wafer support plate (1) is in communication with the inner vacuum region (see annotated fig.3 above), and wherein the ventilation channel (1b) of the wafer support plate (1, see fig.3) is in communication with the outer vented region (see annotated fig.3 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Furuta in view of Kitahara’s invention to have “the vacuum system of the wafer support plate is in communication with the inner vacuum region, and wherein the ventilation channel of the wafer support plate is in communication with the outer vented region” as taught by Matsuhira. Doing so ensures the communication between channels which provides consistent and reliable clamping force and ensuring the wafer is perfectly flat during semiconductor manufacturing.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta in view of Kitahara as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Asai (US 20080085397 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Kitahara discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the wafer support plate comprises quartz glass.
Asai discloses an adhesive sheet for laser processing, comprising:
the wafer support plate comprises quartz glass (see para.0063: “a quartz glass table as a chuck table”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of wafer support plate in Furuta in view of Kitahara to comprise “quartz glass” as taught by Asai. The modification ensures the long-term reliability and accuracy of the chuck table in demanding production environments because the quartz glass has high mechanical strength and is resistant to damage from repetitive use and wear and tear.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta in view of Kitahara as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Holden (US 20160133519 A1)
Regarding claim 12, the modification discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the laser unit comprises a UV laser or a green laser or an IR laser.
Holden discloses methods of dicing semiconductor wafers, each wafer having a plurality of integrated circuits thereon, comprising:
the laser unit comprises a UV (ultra-violet) laser or a green laser or an IR (infrared) laser (see para.0080: “a laser with a wavelength in the visible spectrum plus the ultra-violet (UV) and infra-red (IR) ranges (totaling a broadband optical spectrum) may be used to provide a femtosecond-based laser”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the laser unit of Furuta in view of Kitahara to comprise “UV laser or an IR laser” as taught by Holden. Doing so “minimizes chipping, microcracks and delamination in order to achieve clean laser scribe cuts” ( see para.0081 of Holden).
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta in view of Kitahara as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hillman (US 20050035514 A1)
Regarding claim 19, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the ventilation channel is configured to ventilate the annular groove to ambient pressure
Hillman discloses a vacuum chuck having a wafer platen configured to prevent matter from entering between the wafer and wafer platen during processing, comprising:
the ventilation channel is configured to ventilate the annular groove to ambient pressure (see para.0028: “ the processing chamber is vented and returns to ambient pressure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ventilation channel of Furuta in view of Kitahara to be configured to “ventilate the annular groove to ambient pressure” as taught by Hillman. Doing so allows “the residual strain within the wafer material to relax, whereby the wafer effectively restores itself to its natural shape” (See para.0028 of Hillman).
Regarding claim 20, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the ventilation channel is configured to ventilate the annular groove to atmospheric pressure.
Hillman discloses a vacuum chuck having a wafer platen configured to prevent matter from entering between the wafer and wafer platen during processing, comprising:
the ventilation channel is configured to ventilate the annular groove to atmospheric pressure (see fig.3B and para.0028: “ the processing chamber is vented and returns to ambient pressure”, wherein ambient pressure is atmospheric pressure as shown in fig.3B ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ventilation channel of Furuta in view of Kitahara to be configured to “ventilating the annular groove to atmospheric pressure” as taught by Hillman discloses. Doing so allows “the residual strain within the wafer material to relax, whereby the wafer effectively restores itself to its natural shape” (See para.0028 of Hillman).
Response to Argument
Claim Objections: the amendment has overcome the previous objection.
§102 and §103 Claim Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 12/05/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made by Furuta (newly cited) in view of Kitahara, wherein Furuta teaches a chuck for a laser beam wafer dicing equipment (see fig.7 and para.0055-0056), comprising an undiced wafer 10 disposed on a dicing tape 20 as required in claim 1. Thus, rejection to claim 1 is respectfully maintained. Claims 1-12 and 19-20 are rejected by the virtue of their dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claims 17-20, claims 17-18 are withdrawn from consideration by being depended upon the withdrawn claim 13. Claims 18-19 are relied on Hillman.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20050205531 A1 discloses A chuck table for use in a laser beam processing machine.
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 TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761