Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/324,277

MANUFACTURING METHOD OF SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 26, 2023
Examiner
TURNER, BRIAN
Art Unit
2818
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Mitsuboshi Diamond Industrial Co., LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
614 granted / 741 resolved
+14.9% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
802
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
59.5%
+19.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§112
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 741 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-56 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (PG Pub. No. US 2020/0381302 A1) in view of Kamimura (Foreign patent no. JP 2015-046555 A, machine translation provided) and Ueda et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2005/0272224 A1). Regarding claim 1, Murakami teaches a manufacturing method of a semiconductor device, comprising: preparing a semiconductor substrate (¶ 0028: 1) having a plurality of element regions (¶ 0028 & fig. 1: device patterns 2) and having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (fig. 1: 1 has opposing top and bottom surfaces); forming a crack (¶ 0049: VC) extending in a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate along a boundary between the plurality of element regions (fig. 3: VC extends in thickness direction of 1 in boundary between device patterns 2) by pressing a pressing member (¶ 0037: 102) against the first surface of the semiconductor substrate along the boundary (fig. 3: 1 pressed against first surface of 1 along boundary between 2); forming a metal film (¶ 0027: 3) over the plurality of element regions on the first surface of the semiconductor substrate (fig. 1: 3 formed over regions 2 on top surface of 1); and dividing the semiconductor substrate and the metal film along the boundary (¶ 0065 & fig. 6: 1 and 3 divided along boundaries between die regions 2) by pressing a dividing member (¶ 0054: 202) against the semiconductor substrate along the boundary from a direction facing the second surface of the semiconductor substrate after the forming of the metal film (fig. 6: 202 pressed against opposite surface of 1 along boundaries between die regions 2 after forming 3). Murakami does not teach the preparing including thinning the semiconductor substrate to the first surface, or forming a metal film after the forming of the crack. Kamimura teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, including forming a crack (p. 3 line 1: cracks of scribe line S) extending in a thickness direction of a semiconductor substrate (fig. 2a: S extends in a thickness direction of wafer W) along a boundary between the plurality of element regions (figs. 1-2: S formed along scheduled cutting line L between chips W1) by pressing a pressing member (page 3 line 9: 10) against the first surface of the semiconductor substrate along the boundary (p. 3 lines 9-10 & fig. 2a: 10 pressed against top surface of W along cutting line L), the surface absent a metal film (fig. 2a: 10 pressed directly on surface of W); and dividing the semiconductor substrate along the boundary by pressing a dividing member (p. 3 line 20: break bar 5) against the semiconductor substrate along the boundary from a direction facing the second surface of the semiconductor substrate (fig. 2d: 5 pressed against opposite surface of W along boundaries between circuit regions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the method of Murakami to include pressing the pressing member before forming the metal film, as a means to optimize the depth of the crack, and allow for a substrate thinning process (Kamimura, p. 3 lines 14-18, figs. 2b-2c), allowing for semiconductor devices with low power and high integration (Kamimura, p. 1 lines 19-20) as well as reducing defects such as chipping (Kamimura, p. 4 lines 1-7). Murakami in view of Kamimura does not teach the preparing including thinning the semiconductor substrate to the first surface. Ueda teaches a method of dividing a semiconductor substrate (¶ 0010: 7) along a boundary (15), the method including thinning the semiconductor substrate to a first surface (¶ 0010: surface of 7 polished), and forming a crack (¶ 0011: 18) extending in a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate along the boundary (fig. 1B: 18 formed in thickness direction of 7) by pressing a pressing member (¶ 0011: 17) against the first surface of the semiconductor substrate along the boundary (fig. 1B: 17 pressed against polished surface of 7 along boundary 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the preparation of Murakami in view of Kamimura to include thinning the first surface, as a means to minimize the thickness for forming a crack suitable to divide the substrate. Regarding claim 2, Murakami in view of Kamimura and Ueda teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the pressing member is a scribing wheel (Murakami, ¶ 0037 and/or Kamimura, p. 3 line 2), the pressing of the pressing member includes rolling of the scribing wheel (Murakami, ¶ 0048: 102 rotated along surface of 1, and/or Kamimura, p. 3 line 9: 10 is rolled on the surface of W), and the forming of the crack includes forming, on the first surface, a scribe line with the crack extending in the thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate along the boundary (Murakami, fig. 3: VC formed on top surface of 1 extending in thickness direction along boundary between 2, and/or Kamimura, fig. 1a: cracks of S formed on top surface of W extending in the thickness direction along division line L). Regarding claim 3, Murakami in view of Kamimura and Ueda teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, further comprising: attaching a support plate (Murakami. ¶ 0037: stage 101) to the second surface before the forming of the crack (Murakami, fig. 2: 101 attached to bottom surface of 1 before forming VC); and detaching the support plate from the second surface after the forming of the metal film and before the dividing of the semiconductor substrate and the metal film (Murakami, fig. 5: 101 detached from 1 after forming 3 and before dividing 1 and 3). Regarding claim 4, Murakami in view of Kamimura and Ueda teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 3, further comprising attaching a dicing tape (Murakami, ¶ 0061: protection film 5) to a surface of the metal film after the forming of the metal film (Murakami, fig. 5: 5 attached to surface of 3 after forming 3). Murakami further teaches the metal film surface is exposed before detaching of the support plate (fig. 3). Murakami is silent to attaching the dicing tape to a surface of the metal film before the detaching of the support plate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to attaching the dicing tape to a surface of the metal film before the detaching of the support plate, in order to provide conformal adhesion to exposed top and side surfaces of 1/3, prior to placement on holding part 201 (Murakami, fig. 5). Regarding claim 5, Murakami in view of Kamimura and Ueda teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, further comprising covering the second surface with a protective member (Murakami, ¶ 0042: 4) before the dividing of the semiconductor substrate and the metal film (Murakami, fig. 5: 4 covers opposing surface of 1 before dividing 1/3 along lines SL), wherein the dividing of the semiconductor substrate and the metal film includes pressing the dividing member against the semiconductor substrate along the boundary from the direction facing the second surface via the protective member (Murakami, ¶ 0062 & fig. 5: dividing 1 and 3 includes pressing 202 against 1 along boundary lines SL from direction facing surface of 1 via 4). Regarding claim 6, Murakami in view of Kamimura and Ueda teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, further comprising: disposing a main structure (Murakami, ¶ 0029: 2b) on the second surface prior to the forming of the crack (Murakami, fig. 2: 2b formed on opposing surface of 1 prior to forming VC). Regarding claim 9, Murakami in view of Kamimura and Ueda teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the metal film is formed so as to cover substantially an entirety of the first surface (Murakami, fig. 2: 3 formed to at least indirectly cover entire surface of 2a/2b). Regarding claim 10, Murakami in view of Kamimura and Ueda teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the dividing forms the semiconductor device in which the metal film functions as an electrode of the semiconductor device (Murakami, ¶ 0031: 3 comprises electrode material). Regarding claim 11, Murakami in view of Kamimura and Ueda teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein in the dividing, the metal film is divided together with the semiconductor substrate by the pressing of the dividing member (Murakami, ¶ 0051 & fig. 4: 3 divided together with 1 by pressing 102). Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Kamimura and Ueda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakanishi et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2017/0032968 A1). Regarding claim 7, Murakami in view of Kamimura and Ueda teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, including thinning of the semiconductor substrate to the first surface (Ueda, ¶ 0010). Murakami in view of Kamimura and Ueda fails to teach the method further comprising: attaching a support plate to the second surface before the thinning of the semiconductor substrate to the first surface. Nakanishi teaches a method including thinning of a semiconductor substrate to a first surface (¶ 0032: second surface 14 of semiconductor substrate 11 is mechanically ground and polished, so that the thickness of the substrate reaches a suitable thickness) after attaching a support plate to a second opposing surface (¶ 0032: during grinding/polishing, first substrate surface 13 affixed to a support plate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the thinning of Murakami in view of Kamimura and Ueda with a support plate attached to the second surface, as a means to protect the first surface during the thinning process (Nakanishi, ¶ 0032). Regarding claim 8, Murakami in view of Kamimura, Ueda and Nakanishi teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 7, further comprising: peeling the support plate off from the second surface (Nakanishi, ¶ 0033: support plate removed to expose first surface of substrate 11) before the dividing of the semiconductor substrate (Ueda, fig. 1B: 7 divided by pressing 17 and/or Murakami, ¶ 0065 & fig. 6: 1 divided by pressing 202). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 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. 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 BRIAN TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-5411. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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. /BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 26, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 09, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 30, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 30, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604732
Power Electronics Carrier
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604561
MIXED COLOR LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598791
STORAGE DEVICE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING STORAGE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588457
Die Bonding Apparatus and Manufacturing Method for Semiconductor Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581682
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+2.6%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 741 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month