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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 05/18/2026 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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.
Kim in view of Che
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120322231 A1 (“Kim”) in view of US 20200164486 A1 (“Che”).
Kim pertains to a wafer grinding apparatus and method (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6). Che pertains to a wafer grinding apparatus and method (Abstr.; Figs. 1-14). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a grinding method of a wafer with multiple devices formed on a side of a front surface thereof, for forming a recessed portion of a predetermined depth by grinding the wafer on a side of a back surface thereof (Figs. 1-6, 7B; ¶¶ 0032-0037, method of grinding a wafer 11 having devices 15 on front surface 11a, back surface 11b to be ground), comprising:
a holding step of holding the wafer with the back surface kept exposed (Figs. 4-6, 7B; ¶ 0037, wafer 11 is held on chuck table 36 with back surface 11b exposed facing upwards),
a contacting step of bringing any one of multiple grinding stones, the grinding stones being fixed at intervals in an annular pattern on an arrangement surface of a wheel base of a grinding wheel, and a center of the back surface of the wafer into contact with each other while both the grinding wheel and the wafer are being rotated (Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0035-0037, grinding wheel 22 with grinding stones 24 in an annular pattern arranged on wheel base of grinding wheel 22 is brought into contact with wafer back surface 11b, including center point P1, while the grinding wheel 22 and wafer 11 (via chuck table 36) are both rotated),
and a grinding step of, after the contacting step, grinding the wafer on the side of the back surface thereof by, with both the grinding wheel and the wafer kept rotating, bringing the arrangement surface of the wheel base and the front surface of the wafer closer to each other by a first movement distance along a first direction, and also bringing an axis of rotation of the grinding wheel and a center of the wafer closer to each other by a second movement distance along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Figs. 5-6, 7B; ¶¶ 0038, 0041, the inclined circumferential wall 50 is created by a simultaneous downward (“first direction”) and lateral (“second direction”) movement of the grinding wheel 22 (towards to the center of the wafer) relative to wafer 11 with them both rotating),
wherein
the first movement distance is a distance obtained by...the predetermined depth...(Fig. 7B; ¶¶ 0038, 0041-0042, the vertical movement distance (“first movement distance”) is based on a predetermined depth from back surface 11b),
the second movement distance is a distance along the second direction (Fig. 7B; ¶ 0041-0042, the lateral movement distance (“second movement distance”) is in the second direction towards the center of the wafer 11; Examiner notes that this step is optional; see § 112(b) rejection),
in the grinding step, the grinding wheel and the wafer are moved relative to each other at a first relative speed along the first direction (Fig. 7B; ¶¶ 0038, 0041-0042, grinding wheel 22 moves vertically towards wafer 11 at a vertical movement feed speed (“first relative speed”)),
and, in the grinding step, the grinding wheel and the wafer are moved relative to each other at a second relative speed along the second direction, and the second relative speed is a constant or variable speed set, taking the predetermined depth,... the second movement distance, and the first relative speed into consideration, such that the relative movement of the grinding wheel and the wafer along the first direction and the relative movement of the grinding wheel and the wafer along the second direction are concurrently initiated and are concurrently finished (Fig. 7B; ¶¶ 0038, 0041-0042, as evidenced by the inclined circumferential wall 50, the grinding wheel 22 moves vertically and laterally concurrently (including concurrently initiated and concurrently finished), moving at constant vertical and lateral feed speeds, to create the intended inclined circumferential wall 50 to the intended wafer depth (which is at a constant angle (and not curved) relative to the wafer’s circular recess surface 44); Examiner notes that if this were not the case, the wall could not be inclined, but rather stepped or curved (see, e.g., JP 2011054808A (“Suzuki”) (citations to translation filed herewith) Figs. 4-6, 7A-B, 8; ¶¶ 0037-0044, inclined circumferential surface 86 is created by a simultaneous downward and inwardly radial movement (directions 53 and 57) of the grinding wheel 18 relative to wafer 11 to a predetermined depth, using a predetermined constant feed speed)).
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
the first movement distance is a distance obtained by adding the predetermined depth and an expected wear thickness of the grinding stones when the wafer is ground to the predetermined depth,
and, in the grinding step, the grinding wheel and the wafer are moved relative to each other at a second relative speed along the second direction, and the second relative speed is a constant or variable speed set, taking the predetermined depth, the expected wear thickness, the second movement distance, and the first relative speed into consideration, such that the relative movement of the grinding wheel and the wafer along the first direction and the relative movement of the grinding wheel and the wafer along the second direction are concurrently initiated and are concurrently finished.
However, the Kim/Che combination makes obvious this claim.
Che discloses:
the first movement distance is a distance obtained by adding the predetermined depth and an expected wear thickness of the grinding stones when the wafer is ground to the predetermined depth (Fig. 11; ¶¶ 0099-0107, the expected wear thickness of the polishing pad 110 is accounted for in determining the total polishing depth of the wafer (“first movement distance”)),
and, in the grinding step, the grinding wheel and the wafer are moved relative to each other at a second relative speed along the second direction, and the second relative speed is a constant or variable speed set, taking the predetermined depth, the expected wear thickness, the second movement distance, and the first relative speed into consideration, such that the relative movement of the grinding wheel and the wafer along the first direction and the relative movement of the grinding wheel and the wafer along the second direction are concurrently initiated and are concurrently finished (Fig. 11; ¶¶ 0099-0107, the expected wear thickness of the polishing pad 110 is accounted for in determining the total polishing depth of the wafer (“first movement distance”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Che with Kim by modifying the grinding apparatus to take into consideration the expected grindstone wear thickness when determining the first movement distance and the second relative speed, as recited. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because accounting for expected grindstone wear thickness would provide a more accurate grinding endpoint in the vertical direction (“first movement distance”), and the additional inclusion of expected grindstone wear thickness in the calculation of the second relative speed would allow for a more accurate lateral grinding endpoint (“second movement distance”) that accounts for the actual vertical grinding movement distance (which includes grindstone wear thickness) (Che ¶ 0101, “Specifically, the polishing control unit 600 uses the thickness of the polishing pad 110 as a control index, and controls parameters of the polishing process such as the pressing force of the carrier head 200 for pressing the substrate W to the polishing pad 110, the rotation of the carrier head 200 and polishing time by the carrier head 200. In other words, when the thickness of the polishing pad is changed, the wear rate of the substrate is changed. Also, the initial thickness of the polishing pad is known by measuring before installing onto the polishing table. Thus, as the polishing process proceeds, the changed amount of the polishing pad 110 is measured and thus the thickness of the polishing pad 110 is obtained in real time by subtracting the changed amount of the polishing pad 110 from the initial thickness in every polishing process. Therefore it is more desirable based on the thickness of the polishing pad to control the polishing parameters such as the pressing force of the carrier, the rotational speed of the carrier head, and conditioning time so as to accurately polish the substrate to the targeted thickness, whereby the change of the wear rate of the substrate W depending on the thickness change of the polishing pad 110 may be compensated.”).
Regarding claim 4, the Kim/Che combination makes obvious the grinding method of claim 1 as applied above.
Kim further discloses:
wherein the first relative speed is set at a constant speed (Fig. 7B; ¶¶ 0038, 0041-0042, grinding wheel 22 moves vertically towards wafer 11 at a constant, predetermined vertical movement feed speed (“first relative speed”); further, as evidenced by the inclined circumferential wall 50, the grinding wheel 22 moves vertically and laterally concurrently (including concurrently initiated and concurrently finished), moving at constant vertical and lateral feed speeds, to create the intended inclined circumferential wall 50 to the intended wafer depth (which is at a constant angle (and not curved) relative to the wafer’s circular recess surface 44); Examiner notes that if this were not the case, the wall could not be inclined, but rather stepped or curved (see, e.g., JP 2011054808A (“Suzuki”) (citations to translation filed herewith) Figs. 4-6, 7A-B, 8; ¶¶ 0037-0044, inclined circumferential surface 86 is created by a simultaneous downward and inwardly radial movement (directions 53 and 57) of the grinding wheel 18 relative to wafer 11 to a predetermined depth, using a predetermined constant feed speed)).
Kim in view of Che and Xu
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120322231 A1 (“Kim”) in view of US 20200164486 A1 (“Che”), and US 20210402551 A1 (“Xu”).
Kim pertains to a wafer grinding apparatus and method (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6). Che pertains to a wafer grinding apparatus and method (Abstr.; Figs. 1-14). Xu pertains to a wafer grinding apparatus and method (Abstr.; Fig. 1A). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 2, the Kim/Che combination makes obvious the grinding method of claim 1 as applied above.
Kim further discloses:
wherein...the second relative speed is a speed obtained by dividing the second movement distance with a time obtained by dividing the first movement distance with the first relative speed (Fig. 7B; ¶¶ 0041-0042, the desired angle θ is obtained by using a second relative speed, which is based on a lateral distance (“second movement distance”) divided by a time based on the vertical movement distance (“first movement distance”) divided by the first relative speed).
Kim and Che do not explicitly disclose wherein the expected wear thickness is known before the grinding step. However, the Kim/Che/Xu combination makes obvious this claim.
Xu further discloses:
wherein the expected wear thickness is known before the grinding step (Figs. 5-6; ¶¶ 0022, 0065, 0074, 0077-0081, a known expected pad wear thickness is used to calculate a modified thickness value, which is used to determine the polishing endpoint).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Xu with the Kim/Che combination by modifying the grinding apparatus to use an expected grindstone wear thickness that is known prior to performing grinding step. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because, for example, when grinding multiple wafers having the same construction (e.g., same material and thickness) under the same operating conditions (e.g., same temperature, pressure, grinding stone) to have the same profile, it can be assumed that the grindstone wear for each processed wafer would be the same. Thus, in order to improve processing time, such as by removing measuring steps (either during grinding or before/after grinding of a wafer) of the grindstone thickness (or the amount of wear) or the resulting wafer thickness, a known expected grindstone wear thickness could be used instead.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered.
Claims – The objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(b) rejection of claims 1-2 is hereby withdrawn.
New claim 4 has been added. Claims 1-4 are pending. Claim 3 has been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant misconstrues the stated obviousness combination of Che with Kim (Reply at 8-9). Che is relied upon for its teachings that account for a reduced polishing pad thickness due to usage wear (analogous to grinding stones wear), for example, polishing parameters such as polishing time (Che ¶ 0101). Although Che does not discuss relative movement of the wafer vs. the polishing pad in a lateral direction (“second direction”/“second relative speed”), this does not detract from the fact that Kim does. That is, the combination of Che with Kim merely adds Che’s consideration of grinding stone wear into calculating Kim’s vertical and lateral movement speeds (Fig. 7B; ¶¶ 0038, 0041-0042), which already takes into account the other recited factors including the predetermined grinding depth, the vertical feed speed (“the first relative speed”), and the second movement distance (to yield the indicated angle θ.
With respect to Shibata, upon further consideration, the inclusion of Shibata in the rejection of claim 1 appears to be unnecessary because Kim explicitly discloses a predetermined vertical grinding depth, a predetermined, constant vertical feed speed (“the first relative speed”), and the desired angle θ (Kim Fig. 7B; ¶¶ 0038, 0041-0042). Based on these constants, the second (lateral) movement distance and the second (lateral) relative speed of Kim are constrained, and are therefore at least implicit if not explicit due to the mathematical constraint. And to be clear, the inclusion of the grinding stone wear thickness per Che does not change this. That is, when grinding stone wear thickness is accounted for in the first (vertical) movement distance, in order to keep the same desired angle θ and predetermined vertical grinding depth using a predetermined, constant vertical feed speed, the second (lateral) movement distance and the second relative speed are still constrained mathematically.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights