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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the remarks filed, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 5-7 under 35 USC 102 over Shibata (US 2017/0009378) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shibata et al (US 2017/0009378) in view of Chang (US 2022/0051897).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 13-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al (US 2017/0009378) in view of Chang (US 2022/0051897).
Shibata et al teaches a method for processing a single crystal blank 2, the single crystal blank having a first end, a second end extending between the first end and the second end wherein the single crystal blank includes a seed crystal 1 and a single crystal 3, the seed crystal extending at least partially along the longitudinal axis, wherein the method comprises a peripheral surface grinding step of grinding a peripheral surface of the single crystal blank at least partially along the longitudinal axis, wherein the peripheral surface of the single crystal blank is ground up to a first distance (removes 4) to the longitudinal axis at least partially along a portion of the longitudinal axis excluding the seed crystal, wherein the first distance 4 is less than an extension of the seed crystal to the longitudinal axis (Fig 1C,3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5).
Shibata et al does not teach peripheral surface grinding while both a grinding wheel and the single crystal blank on a chuck table perform a rotational movement.
In a method of grinding a wafer, Chang teaches a wafer having a chamfered portion at a peripheral edge includes a holding step of holding the wafer by a holding table, and a chamfer removing step of rotating the holding table (chuck table) while causing a first cutting blade to cut into the peripheral edge of the wafer (Abstract). Chang also teaches a step of rotating the holding table 6 while causing the first cutting blade 12 (grinding wheel) to cut into the peripheral edge Wg of the wafer W to remove a chamfered portion M at a predetermined depth Ws of the peripheral edge Wg of the wafer W and rotating the cutting blade (Fig 6A, 6B, 7; [0029]-[0031], [0041]-[0067]). Chang teaches since the wafer W is rotated in the process of removing the chamfered portion M, the cutting liquids 75a and 76a on the surface of the wafer W flow in the direction of spacing away from the center of the wafer W according to the rotation of the wafer W ([0058]). Chang teaches liquid is continuously supplied to a processing point and a surface of the cutting blade, to remove cutting swarf and to cool the cutting blade ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Shibata et al by using Chang’s method of peripheral surface grinding while rotating the grinding wheel and chuck table while supplying cooling liquids, as taught by Chang, to flow cooling liquids away from the surface of the wafer thereby preventing cutting swarf from moving toward the center of the wafer (Chang [0003]-[0010]).
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Shibata et al and Chang teaches using a wire saw to obtain free-standing substrates (Shibata [0140]), which clearly suggests a wafer producing step from the single crystal blank, the wafer having a predetermined thickness along the longitudinal axis.
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Shibata et al and Chang teaches a seed 1 and growing a single crystal 2, which reads on step of providing the seed crystal for crystal growth; and a crystal growing step of growing a single crystal on a surface of the seed crystal for forming the single crystal blank.
Referring to claim 6 and 13-15, the combination of Shibata et al and Chang teaches after a free-standing substrates are obtained, the substrate 1 left is reused as the seeding crystal by planarizing the surface thereof using a grinding machine and mirror polishing it (Shibata [0144]), which clearly suggests a seed crystal processing step 4 of processing the seed crystal, the seed crystal processing step preferably including grinding and/or polishing of the seed crystal.
Referring to claim 7 and 18, the combination of Shibata et al and Chang teaches the single crystal blank is processed for forming an ingot or a wafer, wherein the wafer is particularly formed using a laser beam, a blade and/or a wire saw (Shibata [0140] teaches using wire saw to obtain free-standing substrates).
9. Claim(s) 2-3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al (US 2017/0009378) in view of Chang (US 2022/0051897), as applied to claim 1, 4-7, 13-15 and 18 above, and further in view of Nakayama (US 2008/0176386).
The combination of Shibata et al and Chang teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, except the peripheral surface of the single crystal blank is ground at least partially along the longitudinal axis up to a second distance to the longitudinal axis, the second distance being greater than or substantially equal to an extension of the seed crystal to the longitudinal axis.
In a method of peripheral grinding of a crystal, Nakayama teaches a complex 20 includes a substrate 9, a crystal body 24, and a deposit 26, wherein the deposit 26 is inevitably formed on each of the side faces 9a, 24a of the substrate 9 and the crystal body 24; and the complex 20 is mounted on the peripheral processor 22 comprising a grinding stone 28 so as to be rotatable about a predetermined axis Ax for machining the periphery of the complex 20, wherein the grinding changes the deposit 26 on the periphery of the complex 20 to a deposit 26a, and the dimension D2 of the complex 20 is made smaller than the diameter D1 (Fig 2(A), 2(B), 2(C), 4(A), 4(B), 5(A), 5(B), 6(A), and 6(B); [0035]-[0055]), which clearly suggests the peripheral surface of the single crystal blank is ground at least partially along the longitudinal axis up to a second distance to the longitudinal axis, the second distance being greater than or substantially equal to an extension of the seed crystal to the longitudinal axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Shibata et al and Chang by grinding partially along the longitudinal axis up to a second distance to the longitudinal axis, the second distance being greater than or substantially equal to an extension of the seed crystal to the longitudinal axis, as taught by Nakayama, to reduce the dimension of the deposit that is formed on the periphery of the complex.
Referring to claim 3 and 11, the combination of Shibata et al, Chang and Nakayama teaches the peripheral surface of the single crystal blank is ground at least along a seed portion of the longitudinal axis up to the second distance to the longitudinal axis, the seed portion including the seed crystal (Nakayama (Fig 2(A), 2(B), 2(C), 4(A), 4(B), 5(A), 5(B), 6(A), and 6(B); [0035]-[0055])).
10. Claim(s) 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al (US 2017/0009378) in view of Chang (US 2022/0051897), as applied to claim 1, 4-7, 13-15 and 18 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al (US 9,452,495).
The combination of Shibata et al and Chang teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, as discussed above, except a wafer producing step of producing wafers from the single crystal blank, the wafer having a predetermined thickness along the longitudinal axis, wherein the wafer producing step preferably comprises a sub-step of focusing a laser beam inside the single crystal blank. Shibata et al teaches slicing a crystal to obtain free-standing substrates, however, does not explicitly teach using a laser beam.
In a method of making wafer out of an ingot, Hashimoto et al teaches slice crystal ingots by using laser beams, wherein ingot crystals are irradiated with scanned lines of laser beams to slice wafers out of the ingots (abstract; col 3, ln 1 to col 4, ln 67), which clearly suggests a sub-step of focusing a laser beam inside the single crystal blank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Shibata et al and Chang by using laser beams to slicing wafers from the crystal, as taught by Hashimoto et al, to minimize a slicing margin (col 2, ln 1-20).
Referring to claim 12 and 16, the combination of Shibata et al, Chang and Hashimoto et al teaches using laser beams to slicing wafers from the crystal.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al (US 2017/0009378) in view of Chang (US 2022/0051897), as applied to claim 1, 4-7, 13-15 and 18 above, and further in view of Iso et al (US 20170338112).
The combination of Shibata et al and Chang teaches all of the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above, except the wafer is formed using a blade. Shibata teaches using wire saw to obtain free-standing substrates ([0140]).
In a method of obtaining wafer from an ingot, Iso et al teaches an ingot is sliced parallel to or substantially parallel to the C-plane by use of a wire saw slicer or an inner peripheral blade slicer, to provide a disk-shaped wafer ([0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Shibata et al and Chang by using a blade to slice wafers from an ingot, as taught by Iso et al, because using a blade or wire saw are taught to be equivalents methods for obtaining wafers. Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 11-18 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jin et al (KR 20100070159), an English computer translation (CT) is provided. In a method of making a wafer, Jin et al teaches a laser processing device for cutting a wafer comprising a laser (L) may be placed so that it penetrates the second surface (10b) to form cracks (11) on a cut surface (12) corresponding to a certain height from the active surface; the height (h1) from a first surface (10a) to the cut surface (12) can be set to the height of the wafer from the active surface to the thickness of the substrate; and wafer (10) can be cut based on the cutting surface (12) by a rotational force applied in a direction parallel to the cutting surface (12) of the wafer (10) (CT pg 4-6 and 10).
US 2021/0134619 teaches a cutting blade 71 is moved toward the central axis of the chuck table 75 and pressed against the outer circumferential edge of the wafer 10 rotating with the chuck table 75, thereby grinding the wafer 10 ([0072]; Fig 14).
US 5,113,622 teaches frictional heat generated by grinding is cooled by cooling liquid (e.g., deionized water) supplied to a grinding surface S of the semiconductor wafer W which contacts the grinding wheel 3. Thus, undesired thermal influences on the semiconductor wafer W can be eliminated. (abstract; col 2, ln 30-68).
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 MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714