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 because they show lead lines of 13a-d and “13” pointing at the same object introducing ambiguity. It is recommended that subgroups of 13 be shown by brackets. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2018120986 to Inoue.
Inoue teaches a laser processing method comprising:
Regarding claim 1
a first step of preparing a wafer (abstract) including a plurality of functional elements (unit regions 100s) disposed to be adjacent to each other via a street (see space between in Fig. 13); a second step of, after the first step, forming a modified region in the wafer along a line passing through the street (Fig. 13); and a third step of, after the second step, irradiating the street with laser light such that a surface layer of the street is removed (abstract), and a fracture extending from the modified region reaches a bottom surface of a recess formed by removing the surface layer, along the line (abstract).
Regarding claim 6
an information acquisition step of acquiring fracture extension information regarding extension of the fracture (Fig. 1 flow chart as described “generating a crack” must first require some sort of signal or information in order to be performed), before the third step, wherein, in the third step, the street is irradiated with the laser light based on the fracture extension information such that the surface layer is removed and the fracture reaches the bottom surface of the recess along the line (Fig. 1 flow chart as described).
Regarding claims 7 and 8
in the information acquisition step, the fracture extension information is acquired based on an image capturing result obtained by an internal observation camera capturing an image of the wafer after the modified region is formed in the second step. (“The alignment in stealth dicing is performed by, for example, photographing the wafer 100W from the surface 120a side of the dielectric multilayer film 120 with a camera mounted on a laser dicing apparatus and detecting the pattern of the light emitting structure 136 from the acquired image. Can be executed”). Wherein the information includes information regarding whether or not the fracture has reached the street (an image of the wafer would necessarily have such information).
Regarding claim 9
wherein, in the third step, only a region not reached by the fracture along the line in the street is irradiated (this is true when the process begins for all process starts regardless if specifically mentioned) along the line based on the fracture extension information such that the surface layer is removed, and the fracture reaches the bottom surface of the recess along the line (abstract; Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 10
a protective film applying step of applying a protective film (120) onto at least the street of the wafer before the second step (this would be true if it were there from the beginning as stated).
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(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of JP 2020027872 to Kobayashi
Regarding claim 2
Innou teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but ails to teach the method further comprising: a grinding step of grinding and thinning the wafer.
Kobayashi teaches a grinding step of grinding and thinning the wafer (“grinding the back surface” and S30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Innou with a grinding process, as taught by Kobayashi, in order to remove material as necessary and thin as necessary the wafer during production.
Regarding claims 3-5
Innou as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not teach the specific claimed timing of the grinding process. However, applicant teaches no particular unexpected or synergistic results from the claimed timings, and in fact states they are interchangeable, as such it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to alter the timing of the grinding process to meet the claimed language.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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. Claim 11 obtains an unexpected result by having the modified region formed such that the fracture does not reach the street.
Conclusion
US 20050037541 teaches a similar method to that claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights