DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to claim amendment filed on 08/06/2026 and wherein claims 1,12, 17 being currently amended and claims 7 and 14 are cancelled. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (KR 2011053573 A) in view of Aslpaugh (US 10850922 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches, an apparatus to separate a wafer from a pre-sliced boule of wafers (abstract),
comprising:
a conveyor (11) configured to move the pre-sliced boule of wafers from a first end to a second end (Pg. 3, Paragraph 5 – for moving wafer in horizontal direction),
wherein one end of the pre-sliced boule includes a first wafer (WS) and a second wafer (WS) adjacent to the first wafer (fig. 2 – Shows first and second wafer);
a lift yoke (22) positioned proximate the second end (fig. 2), wherein the lift yoke includes a wafer slot (221) and configured to receive the first wafer therein when the pre-sliced boule of wafers is positioned at the second end (fig. 4);
and a pusher blade (20) configured to raise the lift yoke along with the first wafer positioned in the wafer slot from a first position to a second position (fig. 4),
wherein the wafer slot is vertically aligned with the conveyor at the first position and the wafer slot is positioned above the conveyor in the second position (fig. 2 – slot (221) is aligned with carrier (11).
Jung fails to teach,
Wherein the conveyor includes a pair of angular belts arranged in a V-configuration and configured to cradle the pre-sliced boule of wafers therebetween.
However, Aslpaugh teaches,
Wherein the conveyor includes a pair of angular belts (fig. 6 – shows v shaped conveyor (120/130) cradling cylindrical load) arranged in a V-configuration and configured to cradle the pre-sliced boule of wafers therebetween.
Jung and Aslpaugh are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they
are both in the field of automatic feeding devices and manufacturing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conveyor belt in Jung’s wafer splitting apparatus to include the pair of angular belts taught by Liu, as disclosed by the applicant the angular conveyor belts cradle the boule of wafers to prevent rolling and damage during conveyance.
PNG
media_image1.png
474
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jung teaches, The apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the pusher blade is further configured to lower the lift yoke from the second position to the first position (pg.7 – paragraph 5 – pusher blade moves in vertical direction),
wherein the second wafer is configured to be received in the wafer slot when the lift yoke is back at the first position (fig 3/4).
Regarding claim 3, Jung teaches, the apparatus of claim 1,
further including a fixed stop (13) positioned proximate the second end of the conveyor (fig. 1),
wherein the fixed stop is configured to stop the pre-sliced boule of wafers at the second end (fig. 2 – fixed stop holds back wafers).
Regarding claim 8, Jung teaches, the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the conveyor (11) is positioned in a liquid bath (1).
Regarding claim 11, Jung teaches, the apparatus of claim 1,
further including a sensor configured to detect an end of wafers in the pre-sliced boule of wafers (Pg. 7 – paragraph 1 – upper and lower measurement sensor to detect the wafer stack).
Regarding claim 17, Jung teaches, a method of removing of removing a wafer from a pre-sliced boule of wafers (abstract),
comprising:
moving the pre-sliced boule of wafers from a first end to a second end on a conveyor (pg. 6 – paragraph 8,
wherein one end of the pre-sliced boule includes a first wafer and a second wafer adjacent to the first wafer (fig. 2 – WS);
receiving the first wafer (WS) in a wafer slot (221) of a lift yoke (22) when the pre-sliced boule of wafers is positioned at the second end (13) (fig. 2/4);
and raising the lift yoke along with the first wafer positioned in the wafer slot from a first position to a second position (fig.3/4 – raising first wafer),
wherein the wafer slot is vertically aligned with the conveyor in the first position and the wafer slot is positioned above the conveyor in the second position (fig.3 – aligning of wafer slot with conveyor).
Jung fails to teach,
Wherein the conveyor includes a pair of angular belts arranged in a V-configuration and configured to cradle the pre-sliced boule of wafers therebetween.
However, Aslpaugh teaches,
Wherein the conveyor includes a pair of angular belts (fig. 6 – shows v shaped conveyor (120/130) cradling cylindrical load) arranged in a V-configuration and configured to cradle the pre-sliced boule of wafers therebetween.
Jung and Aslpaugh are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they
are both in the field of automatic feeding devices and manufacturing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conveyor belt in Jung’s wafer splitting apparatus to include the pair of angular belts taught by Liu, as disclosed by the applicant the angular conveyor belts cradle the boule of wafers to prevent rolling and damage during conveyance.
Regarding claim 20, Jung teaches, the method of claim 17, wherein moving the pre-sliced boule of wafers (WS) from a first end to a second end includes moving the pre-sliced boule of wafers through a liquid bath (1) on the conveyor (fig. 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2011053573 A) in view of Alspaugh (US 10850922 B1) and further in view of Nakaura (US 6139591).
Regarding claim 4, Jung and Aslpaugh fail to teach, The apparatus of claim 3,
wherein the fixed stop includes a plurality of elastomeric pads configured to contact a surface of a wafer of the pre-sliced boule of wafers when the pre-sliced boule of wafers is positioned at the second end.
However, Nakaura teaches, a
fixed stop which includes a plurality of elastomeric pads (926A-C) configured to contact a surface of a wafer of the pre-sliced boule of wafers when the pre-sliced boule of wafers is positioned at the second end (Col 48 – lines 15-30).
Jung, Alspaugh and Nakaura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of semiconductor handling and manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung’s wafer splitting apparatus elastomeric pads as taught by Nakaura, as disclosed by the applicant, doing so allows for the boule of wafers to have compliance when pressed into the fixed stop preventing damage.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2011053573 A) in view of Alspaugh (US 10850922 B1) and further in view of Vercruysse (BE 1019301).
Regarding claim 5, Jung and Alspaugh fail to teach, The apparatus of claim 3,
wherein the lift yoke is positioned between the second end of the conveyor and the fixed stop.
However, Vercruysse teaches,
wherein the lift yoke (107) is positioned between the second end of the conveyor (fig. 5 - 101) and the fixed stop (fig. 2 - 21).
Jung, Alspaugh and Vercuysse are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semiconductor handling and manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung’s wafer splitting apparatus to include the position of the lift yoke within the apparatus as disclosed by Vercruysse. Doing so allows the for the lift yoke to be braced against the fixed stop, simplifying manufacturing and layout of the system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2011053573 A) in view of Alspaugh (US 10850922 B1) and further in view of Li (CN 111439418 A).
Regarding claim 6, Jung and Alspaugh fail to teach, the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the wafer slot is an opening having a semicircular shape.
However, Li teaches,
wherein the wafer slot (407) is an opening having a semicircular shape (fig. 7 – 607).
Jung, Alspaugh and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they
are all in the field of semiconductor handling and manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung’s wafer splitting apparatus to include the semi-circular wafer slot taught by Li, doing so allows for the wafer to be gripped by the edges, limiting the risk of breakage and damage during the handling process.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2011053573 A) in view of Alspaugh (US 10850922 B1) and further in view of Kim (KR 2011063420 A).
Regarding claim 9, Jung and Alspaugh fail to teach, the apparatus of claim 1,
further including a pusher slug positioned proximate the first end of the conveyor,
wherein the pusher slug is configured to push the pre-sliced boule of wafers from the first end towards the second end.
However, Kim teaches, The apparatus of claim 1,
further including a pusher slug (A1) positioned proximate the first end of the conveyor (fig.1),
wherein the pusher slug is configured to push the pre-sliced boule of wafers from the first end towards the second end (fig.1, [0016] – A1 pushes boule forward for separation).
Jung, Alspaugh and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they
are both in the field of automatic feeding devices and manufacturing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung’s wafer splitting apparatus to include the pusher slug taught by Kim, doing so allows the wafers to have a secondary mechanical force pushing them into the separation mechanism and holds them in a fixed position, limiting the risk of damage to the wafers.
Claims 10, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2011053573 A) in view of Alspaugh (US 10850922 B1) and further in view of Miyanari (WO 2020153307 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Jung and Alspaugh fail to teach, the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein when the lift yoke lift is positioned at the second position, the first wafer positioned in the wafer slot is accessible by a robotic wafer-removal arm.
However, Miyanari teaches,
wherein when the lift yoke lift is positioned at the second position, the first wafer positioned in the wafer slot (114) is accessible by a robotic wafer-removal arm (118) (fig.9 – [0022]).
Jung, Alspaugh and Miyanari are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of wafer manufacturing and conveyance. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung’s wafer splitting apparatus to include second position of the lift yoke and robotic wafer removal arm, doing so allows for the wafer to be transported to a secondary handling mechanism for further processing.
Regarding claim 18, Jung and Alspaugh fail to teach, the method of claim 17,
further including removing the first wafer from the wafer slot when the lift yoke is positioned at the second position.
However, Miyanari teaches, the method of claim 17,
further including removing the first wafer from the wafer slot (114) when the lift yoke is positioned at the second position ([0022]).
Jung and Miyanari are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they
are both in the field of wafer manufacturing and conveyance. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung’s wafer splitting apparatus to include second position of the lift yoke and robotic wafer removal arm doing so allows for the wafer to be transported to a secondary handling mechanism for further processing.
Regarding claim 19, Jung teaches, the method of claim 18,
further including lowering the lift yoke (20) from the second position to the first position after the removing (Fig. 2/3 – raising and lowering of lift yoke),
wherein the second wafer is configured to be received in the wafer slot when the lift yoke is lowered to the first position (Fig. 2/3 - Wafers are sequentially removed by lifting and lowering lift yoke).
Claims 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2011053573 A) in view of Vercruysse (BE 1019301 A5) in view of Li (CN 111439418 A) and further in view of Alspaugh (US 10850922 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Jung teaches, an apparatus to separate a wafer from a pre-sliced boule of wafers ([abstract]), comprising:
a conveyor (11) configured to move the pre-sliced boule of wafers from a first end to a second end (fig.2 - conveyor (11) moves wafers against fixed stop (13)), wherein one end of the pre-sliced boule includes a first wafer and a second wafer adjacent to the first wafer (WS – stack of wafers);
a fixed stop (13) positioned proximate the second end of the conveyor and configured to stop the pre-sliced boule of wafers at the second end (fig. 2- wafers pressed against fixed stop (13));
a lift yoke configured to receive the first wafer therein when the pre-sliced boule of wafers is stopped by the fixed stop (fig.3 – lift yoke receiving wafer);
and a pusher blade (20) configured to (a) raise the lift yoke along with the first wafer positioned in the wafer slot from a first position to a second position (fig. 4 – pusher blade moving vertically with wafer),
wherein the wafer slot is vertically aligned with the conveyor in the first position and the wafer slot is positioned above the conveyor in the second position (fig.1/3 – show alignment of wafer in first and second position),
and (b) lower the lift yoke (22) from the second position to the first position, wherein the second wafer is configured to received in the wafer slot when the lift yoke is back at the first position (fig. 2 – wafers are continually moved towards fixed stop (13) for picking).
Jung fails to teach, a lift yoke positioned between the second end of the conveyor and the fixed stop.
However, Vercruysse teaches,
a lift yoke positioned between the second end of the conveyor and the fixed stop.
Jung and Vercuysse are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they
are all in the field of semiconductor handling and manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung’s wafer splitting apparatus to include the position of the lift yoke within the apparatus as disclosed by Vercruysse for the reasons disclosed above in claim 5.
Neither Jung or Vercruysse teach,
a lift yoke includes an arc-shaped wafer slot
However, Li teaches,
a lift yoke includes an arc-shaped wafer slot
Jung, Vercuysse and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they
are all in the field of semiconductor handling and manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung’s wafer splitting apparatus to include the semi-circular wafer slot taught by Li for the reasons disclosed above in claim 6.
Neither Jung, Vercruysse, or Li teach,
Wherein the conveyor includes a pair of angular belts arranged in a V-configuration and configured to cradle the pre-sliced boule of wafers therebetween.
However, Aslpaugh teaches,
Wherein the conveyor includes a pair of angular belts (fig. 6 – shows v shaped conveyor (120/130) cradling cylindrical load) arranged in a V-configuration and configured to cradle the pre-sliced boule of wafers therebetween.
Jung, Vercruysse, Li and Aslpaugh are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of automatic feeding devices and manufacturing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conveyor belt in Jung’s wafer splitting apparatus to include the pair of angular belts taught by Liu, as disclosed by the applicant the angular conveyor belts cradle the boule of wafers to prevent rolling and damage during conveyance.
Regarding claim 13, Neither Jung, Vercruysse or Alspaugh teach, the apparatus of claim 12,
wherein the wafer slot is a semicircular opening having a diameter substantially the same as the diameter of the first wafer.
However, Li teaches,
wherein the wafer slot is a semicircular opening (607) having a diameter substantially the same as the diameter of the first wafer (fig. 8 – shows slot as similar size as wafer).
Jung, Vercruysse, Alspaugh and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of semiconductor handling and manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung’s wafer splitting apparatus to include the semi-circular wafer slot taught by Li for the reasons disclosed above in claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, Jung teaches, the apparatus of claim 12,
wherein the conveyor is positioned in a liquid bath (1).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2011053573 A) in view of Vercruysse (BE 1019301 A5), in view of Li (CN 111439418 A) in view of Alspaugh (US 10850922 B1) as applied above in claims 1, and further in view of Kim (KR 2011063420 A).
Regarding claim 16, neither Jung, Vercuysse, li or Alspaugh disclose the apparatus of claim 12,
further including a pusher slug positioned proximate the first end of the conveyor, wherein the pusher slug is configured to push the pre-sliced boule of wafers from the first end towards the second end.
However, Kim teaches,
further including a pusher slug (A1) positioned proximate the first end of the conveyor (fig.1),
wherein the pusher slug is configured to push the pre-sliced boule of wafers from the first end towards the second end (fig.1, [0016] – A1 pushes boule forward for separation).
Jung, Vercruysse, Li Alspaugh and Kim are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of automatic feeding devices and manufacturing of semiconductor devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung’s wafer splitting apparatus to include the pusher slug taught by Kim, for the reasons disclosed above in claim 9.
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.
/JUAN S MOSCOSO/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights