Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/328,310

METHOD OF HANDLING WAFER

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 02, 2023
Examiner
PETERSON, ERIK T
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Disco Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
271 granted / 353 resolved
+8.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
393
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
39.3%
-0.7% vs TC avg
§102
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
§112
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 353 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to the application No. 18/328,310 filed on June 15, 2022. 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 without traverse of Species I, corresponding to claims 1-3, in the reply filed on March 6, 2026, is acknowledged. The Examiner finds claims 5-8 generic to the elected species as well as claims 1-2. Claim 4 is withdrawn from consideration. Information Disclosure Statement Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “an inactive gas”, rendering the claim indefinite since Applicant does not define what is or is not an inactive gas, nor under what conditions the gas is considered inactive. Some gases such as CO2 may be relatively inactive at low temperatures and reactive (e.g. oxidizing/corrosive) at a high temperature and/or in the presence of humidity. Some gases may be “inactive” when exposed to glass or Teflon and reactive when exposed to metals. It is suggested Applicant recite the intended gas(es) rather than a functional feature not clearly defined. For the purpose of examination, nitrogen in air (of the atmosphere, which is ~78% N2), will be considered an inactive gas. 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikenaga (JP 2017-228663, citations from machine translation), of record. (Re Claim 1) Ikenaga teaches (see Figs. 1-14 and supporting text) a method of handling a wafer (7) having a plurality of devices (20) formed in respective areas demarcated on a face side thereof by a grid of intersecting projected dicing lines (dicing, lines 151-154), comprising: a frame unit forming step of forming a frame unit by placing the wafer in a central opening of an annular frame (9), affixing a dicing tape (100) to a surface of the annular frame, and affixing the wafer to the dicing tape (Fig. 2B, lines 138-154); a dividing step of processing the wafer along the projected dicing lines to divide the wafer into individual device chips including the respective devices (Fig. 2C, lines 153-154); a package unit forming step of forming a package unit by affixing a sheet to another surface of the annular frame and surrounding the wafer with the dicing tape and the sheet (see Figs. 5 and 14, sheet 200, lines 370-386, 1198-1213); and a delivery step of delivering the package unit (moving the package unit, lines 32-37, 1198-1213). 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. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga. (Re Claim 2) further comprising: an inactive gas filling step of filling a space in the package unit with an inactive gas. (Re Claim 3) wherein the inactive gas filling step includes the step of filling the space in the package unit with the inactive gas by carrying out the package unit forming step in an inactive gas environment. Ikenaga does not explicitly recite an inactive gas filling step of filling a space in the package unit with an inactive gas wherein the inactive gas filling step includes the step of filling the space in the package unit with the inactive gas by carrying out the package unit forming step in an inactive gas environment. Ikenaga seals the space 250/255 by applying the adhesive sheet to the top of the frame 9, and since no special gas(es) or vacuum is disclosed, this is understood to seal in the air from the room/lab/cleanroom, etc., in the package unit meeting the filling step of filling the space with an inactive gas. The air we breathe includes ~78% N2 (in addition it also includes Ar and CO2, additional inactive gases disclosed by Applicant). Nitrogen (N2) is an inactive gas. The claim language does not preclude a mixture or plurality of gases, also see §112 above. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga as applied above, and further in view of Matsuda (US 2016/0035787), of record. (Re Claim 5) further comprising: a cleaning step of cleaning the wafer before the package unit forming step. Ikenaga is silent regarding cleaning. A PHOSITA would recognize conventional dicing processes leave dust, debris, and various contamination on the work piece. A PHOSITA would be motivated to look to related art to teach processes for removing any dust, debris, and contamination. Related art from Matsuda discloses a cleaning step (¶65) after dicing removes undesirable dust/contamination. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to perform a cleaning step as taught by Matsuda following Ikenaga’s dicing to remove any dust, debris, and contamination present. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga as applied above, and further in view of Harada et al. (US 2020/0266102). (Re Claim 6) wherein the sheet includes a thermal-pressure-bonding sheet, and the thermal-pressure-bonding sheet is affixed to the other surface of the annular frame by heat and pressure in the package unit forming step. (Re Claim 7) wherein the thermal-pressure-bonding sheet includes a polyolefin-based sheet selected from the group consisting of a polyethylene sheet, a polypropylene sheet, and a polystyrene sheet. (Re Claim 8) wherein a temperature to which the thermal-pressure-bonding sheet is heated to affix itself to the other surface of the annular frame is in a range from 120°C to 140°C if the thermal-pressure-bonding sheet is the polyethylene sheet, from 160°C to 180°C if the thermal-pressure-bonding sheet is the polypropylene sheet, and from 220°C to 240°C if the thermal-pressure-bonding sheet is the polystyrene sheet. Ikenaga uses a UV releasable adhesive sheet 200 instead of a thermocompression bonding sheet according to claims 6-8. A PHOSITA would recognize sheets with standard adhesives can be difficult to work with as the adhesive can stick to unintended locations and collect dirt and contamination, the adhesives are also known to leave residues, and can melt onto surfaces if heated making removal more difficult. Furthermore, the adhesive can make it very difficult to reposition and/or align the sheet if it accidently contacts the surface and sticks. A PHOSITA desiring to avoid these known issues with adhesive sheets would be motivated to look to related art for alternatives. Related art from Harada similarly recognizes issues with adhesive sheets (¶¶6, 62) and avoids these issues by using thermocompression bonding sheets having no adhesive layer. Harada teaches polyolefin sheets such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene, and each has a working temperature range specific to each polymer (¶¶12-13, 33, 45). A PHOSITA would find it obvious to use a thermocompression bonding sheet as taught by Harada instead of adhesive sheet 200 in Ikenaga as this would avoid known problems with the use of adhesive sheets. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited art teaches related package units, cleaning after dicing, and sheet materials. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 02, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593495
Semiconductor Device and Method of Manufacture
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591325
DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING A FINGER PRINT SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575374
METHOD OF PREPARING A STRUCTURED SUBSTRATE FOR DIRECT BONDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568750
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12564068
Carbon Assisted Semiconductor Dicing And Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+12.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 353 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month