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 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.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not 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 not 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 function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“a processing unit” in claim 1, which is being interpreted as, “a cutting unit that cuts the workpiece by a circular annular cutting blade” or “a laser processing unit that irradiates the workpiece with a laser beam to execute laser processing” in paragraphs [0008]-[0009].
“a processing feed unit” in claim 1, which is being interpreted as, “the processing feed unit 6 has a pair of X-axis guide rails 6c disposed along the X-axis direction on a bottom part in the opening 4a” in paragraph [0022].
“a rotation unit” in claim 1, which is being interpreted as, “rotational drive source such as a motor” in paragraph [0026].
“a controller” in claim 1, which is being interpreted as, “the controller includes a storing section 50a in which various pieces of information including various processing conditions can be registered and a processing control section 50b that controls the respective constituent elements according to the processing condition registered in the storing section 50a” in paragraph [0038].
“an abnormality detecting unit” in claim 4, which is being interpreted as, “The abnormality detecting section 50c detects the occurrence of an abnormality when the load current value of the rotational drive source of the spindle, the pressure value of the negative pressure that acts at the chuck table 10, or the flow rate of the cutting water has exhibited unusual variation.” (e.g., sensors) in paragraph [0049].
“an imaging unit” in claim 5, which is being interpreted as, “The imaging unit (camera unit) 34 images the front surface 1a of the workpiece 1 held by the chuck table 10. The imaging unit 34 includes an imaging element such as a charge coupled device (CCD) sensor or a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensor” in paragraph [0035].
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.
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 § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori et al. (WO 2019/188518 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Mori et al. discloses a processing apparatus (1) that processes a workpiece (10), the processing apparatus comprising:
a chuck table (110 “substrate holding unit”) that holds the workpiece including a plurality of streets (13, “planned division line”) that intersect each other on a holding surface (12);
a processing unit (130, “processing head unit”) that processes the workpiece held by the chuck table along a corresponding one of the streets ([0032], “In the laser processing step S103, the laser processing unit 100 performs laser processing of the substrate 10. The laser processing unit 100 irradiates one point of the planned dividing line 13 (see FIG. 1) with the laser beam LB (see FIG. 6), and moves the irradiation point P1 (see FIG. 6) on the planned dividing line 13. Laser processing for dividing the substrate 10 into a plurality of chips is performed.”);
a processing feed unit (140) that moves the chuck table and the processing unit relative to each other in a direction parallel (144) to the holding surface along a processing feed direction;
a rotation unit (146, “turntable”) capable of rotating the chuck table around a rotation axis along a direction perpendicular to the holding surface; and
a controller (20) that controls the chuck table, the processing unit, the processing feed unit, and the rotation unit, wherein, when processing is suspended with an unprocessed region left while the processing unit is caused to process the workpiece from one end to the other end of the street with relative movement of the chuck table and the processing unit along the processing feed direction by the processing feed unit (Fig. 8), the controller rotates the chuck table by 180 degrees by the rotation unit (Fig. 9) and causes the processing unit to process the unprocessed region of the workpiece from the other end of the street while moving the chuck table and the processing unit relative to each other along the processing feed direction by the processing feed unit (Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
472
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Mori et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the processing unit is a laser processing unit (132) that irradiates the workpiece with a laser beam (LB, Fig. 6) to execute laser processing on the workpiece.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (WO 2019/188518 A1) in view of Norimoto (US PGPUB 2019/0122928 A1).
PNG
media_image3.png
496
744
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Mori et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above.
However, Mori et al. does not explicitly disclose, “wherein the processing unit is a cutting unit that cuts the workpiece by a circular annular cutting blade.”
Norimoto teaches, in the field of semi-conductor processing that cutting (ST2) by a cutting blade (12, Fig. 3) facilitates the entry of plasma formed of a plasma etching gas in a further plasma etching step (ST3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the semi-conductor processing device of Mori et al. to have a cutting blade as taught by Norimoto, as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that “In the cutting step ST2, a second cut groove 302 narrower than the first cut groove 301 is formed in a groove bottom 303 of the first cut groove 301 by making the cutting blade 12 of the other cutting unit 11 after the formation of the first cut groove 301 cut into the groove bottom 303 of the first cut groove 301. In the cutting step ST2, the cut groove 300 in the undersurface 7 of the wafer 1 is formed by forming the first cut groove 301 and the second cut groove 302, and thereby entry of plasma formed of a plasma etching gas into the cut groove 300 is facilitated in the plasma etching step ST3. Incidentally, the cut groove 300 in the first embodiment is formed by the first cut groove 301 and the second cut groove 302. After forming the first cut groove 301 and the second cut groove 302 on the undersurface 7 side of all of the streets 6 of the wafer 1 as illustrated in FIG. 4, the wafer processing method proceeds to the plasma etching step ST3. [0040]”
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (WO 2019/188518 A1) in view of Nakamura (CN 106256476 A).
Regarding claim 4, Mori et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the controller has an abnormality detecting section (150, “inspection unit”) that detects an abnormality that occurs while the workpiece is processed by the processing unit.
However, Mori et al. does not explicitly disclose, “and suspends processing of the workpiece by the processing unit when the abnormality is detected by the abnormality detecting section.” Nakamura teaches, in the field of semi-conductor laser processing, “the laser processing device of the invention is equipped with the object to be processed in the laser light irradiated area for monitoring the monitoring component. in the case of the monitoring means detects the laser light line light-concentrating point moves to the front side from the inside of the processing object light which is generated, it is determined as abnormal and stop processing performed by the laser light, therefore, can inhibit the generating of ablation to the minimum limit, can be eliminated when the object to be processed is divided by exerting external force along the interval channel generated cannot be divided into the region of the device one by one. In addition, it is possible to eliminate ablation debris generated by flying to pollute the condenser of the objective. [0013]”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the semi-conductor processing apparatus of Mori et al. to suspend processing when an abnormality is detected as taught by Nakamura, as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, “it is determined as abnormal and stop processing performed by the laser light, therefore, can inhibit the generating of ablation to the minimum limit [0013].”
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mori et al. and Nakamura teach all of claim 4 as above,
further comprising: an imaging unit (Mori et al., 151 “imaging unit”; Nakamura, 522 “light detector”) that images the workpiece held by the chuck table, wherein the abnormality detecting section causes the imaging unit to image a position processed by the processing unit on the workpiece and detects the abnormality on a basis of a captured image acquired by the imaging unit (Mori et al., “he imaging unit 151 converts the captured image of the substrate 10 into an electrical signal and transmits the electrical signal to the control unit 20. The control unit 20 detects the presence / absence of laser processing abnormality by performing image processing on the image captured by the imaging unit 151. Examples of laser processing abnormalities include deviation between the processing trace 16 and the planned dividing line 13 and chipping. The image processing may be performed in parallel with image capturing or may be performed after image capturing [0046].”; Nakamura [0040]-[0043]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image3.png
496
744
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2019/0122928 A1 discloses a wafer processing method.
PNG
media_image4.png
352
396
media_image4.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2018/0330957 A1 discloses a workpiece processing method.
PNG
media_image5.png
210
406
media_image5.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2018/0200830 A1 discloses a method of processing workpiece.
PNG
media_image6.png
460
380
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2018/0161921 A1 discloses a substrate processing method.
PNG
media_image7.png
266
374
media_image7.png
Greyscale
US Patent 7,732,729 B2 discloses a laser processing device.
PNG
media_image8.png
356
484
media_image8.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2009/0197351 A1 discloses a laser processing method.
PNG
media_image9.png
368
438
media_image9.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2009/0042368 A1 discloses a wafer processing method.
PNG
media_image10.png
516
412
media_image10.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2008/0128396 A1 discloses a laser beam machining system.
PNG
media_image11.png
458
452
media_image11.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2007/0057378 A1 discloses an electronic device and manufacturing method therefore.
PNG
media_image12.png
416
420
media_image12.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2002/0031899 A1 discloses an apparatus and method for singulating semiconductor wafers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745