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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1A in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the Office Action designates separate classifications for Groups 1A and 1B, no basis is provided for such designation. Claims 1 and 12 are each directed to "An apparatus to separate a wafer from a pre-sliced boule of wafers" and accordingly an examination or search burden does not exist to examine Groups 1A and 1B together. This is found to be persuasive.
The requirement is deemed improper and is therefore WITHDRAWN with unelected claims hereby rejoined
Claim Objections
Claim 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: “configured to received” is improper spelling. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-3, 8, 11, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (KR 2011053573 A).
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).
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 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).
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 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2011053573 A) in view of Nakaura (US 6139591).
Regarding claim 4, Jung fails 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 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 Vercruysse (BE 1019301).
Regarding claim 5, Jung fails 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 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 Li (CN 111439418 A).
Regarding claim 6, Jung fails 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 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2011053573 A) in view of Liu (CN 115215072 A).
Regarding claim 7, Jung fails to tech, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the conveyor includes a pair of angular belts configured to cradle the pre-sliced boule of wafers therebetween.
However, Liu teaches,
wherein the conveyor includes a pair of angular belts (304) configured to cradle the pre-sliced boule of wafers therebetween (fig. 3).
Jung and Liu 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2011053573 A) in view of Kim (KR 2011063420 A).
Regarding claim 9, 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 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 Miyanari (WO 2020153307 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Jung fails 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 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 fails 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 for the reasons disclosed above.
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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2011053573 A) in view of Vercruysse (BE 1019301 A5), and further in view of Li (CN 111439418 A).
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.
Regarding claim 13, Neither Jung or Vercruysse 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 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.
Claims 14 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), and further in view of Li (CN 111439418 A) as applied above in claims 12 and 13, and further in view of Liu (CN 115215072 A).
Regarding claim 14, Neither Jung, Vercruysse or li disclose, the apparatus of claim 12,
wherein the conveyor includes a pair of angular belts configured to cradle the pre-sliced boule of wafers therebetween.
However, Liu teaches,
wherein the conveyor includes a pair of angular belts configured to cradle the pre-sliced boule of wafers therebetween.
Jung, Vercruysse, Li and Liu 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 the conveyor belt in Jung’s wafer splitting apparatus to include the pair of angular belts taught by Liu, for the reasons disclosed above in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Jung teaches, the apparatus of claim 14,
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), and further in view of Li (CN 111439418 A) as applied above in claims 12 and 13, and further in view of Kim (KR 2011063420 A).
Regarding claim 16, neither Jung, Vercuysse or li 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.
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 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s
disclosure.
Yoshino (US 9190301 B2) – discloses a mechanism for separating pre-sliced wafers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN SALVADOR MOSCOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-8604. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights