DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment received June 24, 2026. The amendment has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabuchi (US 2018/0308755, of record) in view of Takenouchi (US 2018/0286758, newly cited).
(Re Claim 1) Tabuchi teaches a manufacturing method of chips in which a wafer segmented into a plurality of regions by a plurality of planned dividing lines set in a lattice manner is divided to manufacture the chips (Fig. 1A), the manufacturing method comprising:
a groove forming step of holding the wafer including a first surface and a second surface by a holding table (table discussed below) and forming grooves having a depth smaller than a thickness of the wafer along the planned dividing lines on a side of the first surface of the wafer, said grooves each having side surfaces that extend continuously from top ends to bottom surfaces of said grooves (grooves formed in Fig. 2B, the wafer is obviously held on a table, not shown, during this step);
a first protective film coating step of coating the first surface of the wafer and the side surfaces of the grooves with a first protective film after the groove forming step; and a dividing step of dividing the wafer along the planned dividing lines after the first protective film coating step, wherein plasma etching is executed for the wafer from the side of the first surface in the dividing step (Figs. 4-5C, then a Bosch process, ¶¶40-44, is performed to etch through the wafer, wherein a cycle of isotropic etching, followed by a passivation step, then an anisotropic etch step is performed to break through the passivation in the bottom of the trench, and then the cycle is repeated until the wafer is etched through, the passivation layer forming step forms the passivation on all exposed surfaces and meets the protective film forming step).
While Tabuchi is silent regarding the holding table, a PHOSITA would recognize the wafer 11 in Fig. 2B must be supported by something since wafers to not spontaneously levitate. In order to solve this mystery, a PHOSITA would be motivated to look to related art to determine how to support the wafer when cutting with the dicing blade in the groove forming step (Fig. 2B). Related art from Takenouchi teaches holding the wafer on a holding table when using a dicing blade to form grooves (see Figs. 2B-3B and ¶¶26-34). A PHOSITA would find it obvious to hold the wafer on a table 4, according to Takenouchi, during Tabuchi’s groove forming step.
(Re Claim 3) further comprising: a protective film removal step (¶44) of removing parts that coat bottom surfaces of the grooves in the first protective film to expose the bottom surfaces of the grooves by executing plasma etching for the wafer from the side of the first surface after the first protective film coating step and before the dividing step.
(Re Claim 4) further comprising: a plasma etching step of executing plasma etching for the wafer from the side of the first surface in a state in which the grooves are exposed after the groove forming step and before the first protective film coating step (the wafer is etched using the Bosch process, ¶¶40-44)
(Re Claim 5) wherein the grooves are formed in such a manner that an aspect ratio B/A of a width A of the grooves and a depth B of the grooves becomes equal to or higher than 1 in the groove forming step (see Fig. 2B, the width is clearly greater than the depth).
(Re Claim 6) wherein, in the dividing step, the wafer is divided along the planned dividing lines by executing the plasma etching for the wafer until the grooves reach the second surface of the wafer (the wafer is etched using the Bosch process, ¶¶40-44).
(Re Claim 8) wherein the grooves are formed by causing an annular cutting blade to cut into the wafer in the groove forming step (Fig. 2B, dicing blade 4).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabuchi and Takenouchi, as applied above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0059359, of record).
(Re Claim 2) wherein the dividing step includes a second protective film coating step of coating the side surfaces and bottom surfaces of the grooves with a second protective film thinner than the first protective film, an anisotropic plasma etching step of executing anisotropic plasma etching for the wafer from the side of the first surface to expose the bottom surfaces of the grooves, and an isotropic plasma etching step of executing isotropic plasma etching for the wafer from the side of the first surface to etch the bottom surfaces of the grooves.
Tabuchi is silent regarding the second protective film thinner than the first protective film. A PHOSITA desiring to make, use, and improve upon Tabuchi’s process would be motivated to look to related art for possible improvements. In related art, Wang similarly discloses a Bosch etch process wherein a first protective layer 120 is formed considerably thicker than the subsequent protective layers 132 formed during the Bosch cycles (¶¶6-8, 17, 24, 31-32, 46). This first protective layer 120 is thick enough to survive the entire process and protects the horizontal backside of the workpiece during the process while the thinner protective layers 132 formed during the Bosch deposition cycles, in particular on the horizontal backside surface, may be consumed during the anisotropic etch steps. While Wang recognizes the thicker layer is beneficial for reducing undercut and improving CD (¶17), a PHOSITA would recognize the clear advantages of simply protecting the mask during the Bosch etching to avoid unintended thickness loss or erosion during the etching. Thus a PHOSITA would find it obvious to incorporate Wang’s thicker protective layer 120 in Tabuchi’s process following the groove formation step to eliminate mask erosion.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabuchi and Takenouchi, as applied above, and further in view of Bhardwaj et al. (US 6,051,503), Wu et al. (J. Appl. Phys. 108, 051101 (2010)), and Craigie et al. (J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 20(6), 2002), all of record.
(Re Claim 2) wherein the dividing step includes a second protective film coating step of coating the side surfaces and bottom surfaces of the grooves with a second protective film thinner than the first protective film, an anisotropic plasma etching step of executing anisotropic plasma etching for the wafer from the side of the first surface to expose the bottom surfaces of the grooves, and an isotropic plasma etching step of executing isotropic plasma etching for the wafer from the side of the first surface to etch the bottom surfaces of the grooves.
Tabuchi is silent regarding the second protective film thinner than the first protective film. A PHOSITA would recognize the Bosch etching disclosed will naturally form thinner protective films the deeper the etched trench as discussed below. Alternatively, in order to control trench profile, one may deliberately form subsequent protective films thinner as discussed below. Related art from Wu recognizes the aspect ratio influences the etching and deposition (pp. 8-9, Section E. ARDE), and the higher the aspect ratios (i.e. when etching a deeper feature), the slower the etching and deposition at the bottom of the trench. This is due to the reduced mass transport caused by the higher and higher aspect ratio features formed during the Bosch etching during the etching. This will naturally cause the polymer deposition step to form thinner and thinner layers the deeper the trench is etched. Thus Tabuchi’s subsequent protective films will be slightly thinner. Related art from Craigie teaches the sidewall profile can be controlled by the amount of the polymer layer formed by either depositing for longer durations or increasing the flow of the deposition gas (Fig. 2). Related art from Wu also recognizes the profile dependence on the duration of the individual etching and passivation steps (see pp. 7-8 Section D. Profile). Related art from Bhardwaj discloses a Bosch etch process wherein the deposition gas flow is reduced (and therefore the polymer thickness) for each cycle (see Fig. 20). In view of the prior art, a PHOSITA would recognize as Tabuchi’s Bosch etching continues through the wafer, it will naturally form thinner films as discussed by Wu. Further noting, Tabuchi does not disclose changing or adjusting the cycles during the Bosch etching. Additionally, one could deliberately reduce the deposition cycle flow or duration to decrease the amount of deposition to control the sidewall profile as desired according to Creigie and Bhardwaj.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK T. K. PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 pm (CST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/ERIK T. K. PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights