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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “24” has been used to designate both the grinding layer and the first positioning holes in Figures 5 and 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 26. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“Field of Invention” section: the sentence is grammatically incorrect because “provides” followed by “to a recycle grinding device” suggests that the invention is providing something to a recycle grinding device. It is understood that Applicants are likely trying to say “The invention relates to a grinding device, in particular, to a recycle grinding device”, but the current wording is improper and should be corrected;
“Description of the Prior Art” section: pg. 2, l. 18 recites “…pasting; If…”. A capital letter should not follow a semicolon in this instance;
“Summary of Invention” and “Brief Description of the Drawings” sections: these sections are spaced at 1.5×, while the rest of the specification is double spaced. The specification should have consistent spacing throughout, so while either 1.5× or 2× spacing are acceptable, they cannot be used in combination;
“Description of the Preferred Embodiments” section: there are several inconsistencies between the elements of the drawings and their definitions within the specification:
“first positioning holes” are referred to as element 222, but in the drawings, they are represented by number 24;
“second positioning holes” are referred to as element 224, but in the drawings, they are represented by number 26;
“the placement platform” is initially represented by element 10D, which aligns with what is shown in Figure 10, but 10D is later referred to as the grinding block, which presumably aligns with element 20D in Figure 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the placement platform further comprises a driving transmission mechanism […] so as to control a movement of the grinding block”. A “driving transmission mechanism” is a complicated mechanism—at its simplest, it is comprised of two or more gears which interact to change speed, direction of rotation, and torque—so “driving transmission mechanism” is not self-explanatory. The specification lacks any description of what the mechanism entails or how it is controlling the movement of the grinding block (e.g., is it enabling the block to rotate, or does it move it from side-to-side, or does it move it up-and-down?). In the drawings, the mechanism is represented by element 12, which is a gray rectangle in Figure 5 and a black square in Figure 6; there is nothing to show the structure or motion of the driving transmission mechanism, or how it actually fits with the placement platform, or how a person of ordinary skill in the art can “control a movement of the grinding block” as claimed. The specification therefore lacks adequate antecedent support for the scope of this limitation.
Claim Interpretation
It is unclear what exactly a “recycle grinding device” is, yet it is referenced throughout the disclosure (title, abstract, specification, claims). The term “recycle grinding device” is not a recognized term in the art, and various other uses of the term relate to either a grinding device made of recycled parts, or a grinding device intended to grind recyclable materials. From the description of the invention, the Examiner believes the “recycle” descriptor is meant to read “reconditioning”, or a related term. The invention describes a grinding device intended to clean (i.e., recondition) the needle of a probe used in semiconductor manufacturing processes; the probe must be periodically “reconditioned” in order to remove the various oxides and glue that build up on it over repeated tests. Thus, although the invention is reported as a “recycle grinding device”, the Examiner will herein treat the invention as a “grinding device for reconditioning probes”. If this interpretation is incorrect, applicants are respectfully requested to clarify what “recycle” means in their disclosure.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the grinding layer is sintered to be formed on the base layer”. From the specification, the Examiner believes the process of forming the invention involves coating the base layer with grinding particles and subjecting everything to a predetermined temperature, which causes the grinding particles to sinter into a grinding layer and also “weld” themselves to the base layer (see specification, pg. 4, ll. 14–20). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim, however, only deals with the sintering process; the wording of the claim, “formed on the base layer” does not require the grinding layer to be welded to the base layer, and thus, as long as prior art discloses a sintered grinding layer, the limitations of the claim will be presumed to be met.
Claim 7 recites a parallelism of ≤0.0003 m/m (a deviation in parallel planes of 0.3 mm per meter). There is no evidence of criticality of this value, and so any prior art that teaches or suggests parallel planes will be presumed to have a parallelism of 0, which meets this claim limitation.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuta (US 6,170,116 B1, hereinafter “Mizuta”) and Back et al. (US 2003/0027496 A1, hereinafter “Back”).
Regarding claim 1, Mizuta teaches a device for cleaning semiconductor test probes (see abstract; also see the above Claim Interpretation section, wherein the claimed “recycle grinding device” is presumed to be “a grinding device for reconditioning probes”), comprising a placement platform, having a placement space (see Figure 5, element 4; also see col. 10, ll. 15–20, which describes element 4 as the “base”, which is considered synonymous with a placement platform). Mizuta further teaches the device as comprising a grinding block, located in the placement space, comprising a base layer and a grinding layer (see Figure 5, elements 2 and 3, which are considered to comprise the claimed grinding block located in the placement space; also see col. 10, ll. 15–20, which describes element 2 as an abrasive sheet and element 3 as an adhesive tape, considered synonymous with a grinding layer and a base layer, respectively). Finally, Mizuta teaches the limitation wherein the grinding layer is sintered (see col. 8, ll. 38–41; also see the above Claim Interpretation section regarding this limitation).
Mizuta fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the grinding layer has a thickness greater than or equal to 1 millimeter (see col. 8, ll. 38–41 teaching the grinding layer thickness as 300–400 µm [0.3–0.4 mm]). Mizuta does specify that the grinding layer should be several times thicker than the height of the probe needle (see col. 8, ll. 40–44), which would mean that longer probe needles may require thicker abrasive layers, but Mizuta only explicitly teaches a thickness of 300–400 µm. Back teaches a method and apparatus for cleaning a probe tip (see abstract) wherein the thickness of the grinding layer is 2–200 mils, or 0.0508–5.08 mm (see Back, paragraph 0032; 1 mil is one one-thousandth of an inch, and 0.001 inch = 0.0254 mm). Since Mizuta and Back both teach apparatuses for abrading the probe needle of semiconductor manufacturing devices, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that the abrasive layer of Mizuta’s disclosure can be modified to be thicker according to Back’s disclosure (see MPEP 2144.06(I), which supports a prima facie obviousness rejection based on art-recognized equivalence for the same purpose). This modification is further supported by Mizuta’s recognition that the thickness of the abrasive layer should correspond to the length of the probe needle. The modification of Mizuta by Back arrives at the claimed invention, thus rendering claim 1 obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Mizuta, as modified by Back, teaches the recycle grinding device according to claim 1. Back further teaches the limitation wherein the thickness of the grinding layer is between 1 mm and 10 mm (see Back, paragraph 0032, teaching a thickness of 2–200 mils, or 0.0508–5.08 mm; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, claim 4 will be addressed first. Back teaches the limitation wherein the grinding layer comprises a plurality of grinding particles, and the grinding particles have a diameter of between 0.0032 mm and 0.016 mm (see Back, paragraph 0027 teaching abrasive diamond particles with a diameter of 15 or 16 µm [0.015–0.016 mm]). Regarding claim 3, Back fails to explicitly teach the granularity of the grinding layer, however, Applicants have provided in their specification an equation corresponding to the relation between particle size and granularity (see Specification, pg. 8, ll. 4–6, wherein d = 16 ÷ granularity). This equation can be rearranged to solve for granularity, g: g = 16 ÷ d, wherein d is taught by Back to be 0.015–0.016 mm. This works out to be a granularity of #1000–#1067. Thus, by using the particle size taught by Back, in combination with the relation disclosed by Applicants, it can be determined that Back teaches the limitations of claims 3 and 4, rendering them obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Mizuta and Back further teach the limitation wherein the grinding layer is made of silicon carbide or diamond (see Mizuta, column 11, lines 11–12 teaching stainless-steel fibers as being coated with silicon carbide or artificial diamond as abrasives; also see Back, paragraph 0027 teaching the abrasive layer as comprising diamond or silicon carbide, inter alia).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuta and Back as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 218191184 U, hereinafter “Xu”).
Regarding claim 8, Mizuta, as modified by Back, teaches the recycle grinding device according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the placement platform further comprises a driving transmission mechanism, so as to control the movement of the grinding block. Xu teaches a cleaning system for probes used in semiconductor wafer manufacture (see Xu, paragraph n0001), comprising a base unit which supports a grinding unit (see paragraph n0012), wherein the base unit is connected to a driving device which is used to move the base unit (see paragraph n0013). While it is unclear what the claimed “driving transmission mechanism” is doing exactly (see the above Claim Interpretation section), the movement of the base unit can reasonably be accomplished by a driving transmission mechanism, and so Xu’s “driving device” is considered synonymous with the claimed “driving transmission mechanism”, at least in terms of function.
Mizuta, Back and Xu all teach an apparatus for cleaning probe needles, comprising an abrasive layer mounted on a base, wherein the probe needle is abraded by the abrasive layer. The three references can be considered art-recognized equivalents because they use the same technology to accomplish the same purpose, and thus it is prima facie obvious to combine them with the expectation of producing a device that can still be used for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06(I)). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that the abrasive apparatus taught by Mizuta and modified by Back (see the above rejection of claim 1) can be further modified to include the driving mechanism taught by Xu, which would allow the entire apparatus to be moved relative to the probe. This combination of references arrives at the claimed invention, thus rendering this limitation obvious.
Claims 9–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuta and Back as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MISUMI (MISUMI Corporation, Low Cost Automation Tutorial, #022 Principles of Positioning, 2009, hereinafter “MISUMI”).
Regarding claims 9–11, Mizuta, as modified by Back, teaches the recycle grinding device according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the placement platform is provided with a plurality of first positioning members, wherein the first positioning members have a fixed end attached to the placement platform and an inserted end which inserts into the bottom surface of the base layer of the grinding block to position the base layer adjacent to the placement platform. The use of positioning members to align and hold a workpiece is well known in the art, typically as tools known as fixtures or jigs. MISUMI teaches a locating base (in this case, synonymous with the positioning platform) which has locating pins rising up from the surface; a workpiece with corresponding holes is lowered onto the locating pins, which slide into the holes of the workpiece, aligning it with the base and fixing it in place (see MISUMI, Figure 1).
Neither Mizuta nor Back discuss the mounting of their base layer on a placement platform. Both references disclose an adhesive layer which is fixed to a base layer, in particular, a silicon wafer (see Mizuta, col. 7, ll. 32–36; also see Back, paragraph 0023). However, silicon wafers are fragile, which is sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look for other, less fragile base layers. Back, in addition to teaching silicon wafers, also discloses the use of stainless steel (see Back, paragraph 0023), which is much more durable. A stainless-steel base layer can additionally be drilled and fixed to a placement platform using locating pins, as taught by MISUMI. Back explicitly states that the support structure must be flat to avoid planarity problems (see paragraph 0023), and so a person of ordinary skill in the art would be sufficiently motivated to try and fix the support structure in place, to avoid any wobbling which might cause uneven abrasion of the probe needle. As fixtures and jigs are ubiquitous in manufacturing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a jig to fix a base layer to a placement platform. By taking the grinding block of Mizuta, as modified by Back, and mounting it on a placement platform using alignment pins as taught by MISUMI, the grinding block can be properly aligned and oriented, and subsequently fixed in place to prevent any wobbliness which might otherwise negatively affect the abrasion of the probe needle.
While claim 9 recites the positioning members as inserting into the bottom of the base layer, claim 10 recites the members as inserting into the side wall of the base layer, and claim 11 recites a recessed placement platform wherein the base layer sits in the recessed area and is fixed in place by protrusions from the inner wall of the recessed area which align with grooves in the side walls of the base layer. These are both variations of the jig taught by MISUMI. MISUMI’s Figure 2 shows other positioning methods, including a side-mounted workpiece (Figure 2(2)), and the use of grooves (Figure 2(4)). Either of these would be compatible with a stainless-steel base layer, as discussed in the above rejection of claim 9. While a recessed placement platform as recited in claim 11 is not depicted by MISUMI, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand to be obvious the various positioning methods that can be used to join the base layer to the positioning platform. If the base layer must be mounted from the bottom, as in claim 9, a jig with vertical locating pins can be used. If the base layer must be mounted from the sides, as in claim 10, a jig with horizontal locating pins can be used. And if the base layer must sit in a recessed positioning platform, as in claim 11, V-grooves can be used to fix the base layer in place longitudinally. Thus, claims 9–11 are determined to be prima facie obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 recites the recycle grinding device according to claim 1, wherein the grinding layer is sintered on the base layer at a predetermined temperature, which forms a grinding surface and a first welded surface that are opposite to each other. The base layer has a second welded surface which is bonded to the first welded surface.
The abrasive layer taught by Mizuta is a web of sintered stainless-steel fibers coated in diamond or silicon carbide. The abrasive layer taught by Back is diamond or silicon carbide. Neither of these references discuss welding of the base layer to the grinding layer. Sintering temperatures for diamond and silicon carbide are typically above 1500 °C, while stainless steel, which can serve as the base layer, melts at around the same temperature, depending on the specific grade. So it’s possible that, during the sintering process, some of the stainless-steel base may also melt, effectively welding itself to whatever it touches. However, a comprehensive search failed to return any prior art which combines sintering and welding in the same process. While the process indeed seems plausible, it appears to be a novel process that has not been reported in the art.
Accordingly, claim 6 contains subject matter which would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims . Claim 7, by virtue of its dependency on claim 6, would similarly be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Maekawa et al. (US 2002/0097060 A1) – teaches an abrasive apparatus for cleaning test probe needles;
Broz et al. (US 2014/0331421 A1) – teaches a layered abrasive pad for cleaning test probe needles;
Lee et al. (TW I777778 B) – teaches an abrasive pad for cleaning test probe needles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan P Loughran whose telephone number is (571)272-2173. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F 6:30-4:30.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/R.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731