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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 05/01/2026, claims 1 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-15 are pending and under examination.
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 7 and 12 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, the phrase “the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel are a same grinding wheel” renders the claims vague and indefinite. Claims 7 and 12 depend from claim 1, and claim 1 recites utilizing two separate grinding wheels. It is not clear whether the first and second grinding wheels have the same configuration or one grinding wheel is used. In the latter case, scope of claim limitation in dependent claims is broadened. For examination purpose the examiner has interpreted one grinding wheel is used for embedding and planarization steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsushima et al. (JP 2005303214A, hereinafter Matsushima).
Regarding claim 15, Matsushima discloses workpiece processing method for a workpiece including a substrate whose front surface is in an uneven shape with recesses and projections attributable to formation of a plurality of devices on a front surface side of the substrate (Matsushima English translation, p. 6:26-33 and fig. 2(a), Matsushima teaches a semiconductor wafer grinding method. A semiconductor wafer 2 has a plurality of metal bumps 6 on a front surface to form recesses and projections), and a protective member which adheres to each of the plurality of devices serving as the projections on the front surface side of the substrate (Matsushima English translation, p. 6:34-37, a protective film 11 [corresponds to the recited protective member] is formed on the front surface of the semiconductor wafer 2), the method comprising:
a holding step of holding a back surface side of the substrate on a chuck table (Matsushima English translation, p. 7:1-3 and fig. 2(c), a back side of the semiconductor wafer 2 is placed on a chuck table 4); and
an embedding planarization step of, after the holding step, bringing a rotating grinding wheel closer to the chuck table, while rotating the chuck table, such that the grinding wheel presses and grinds the protective member is pressed and ground to embed the protective member in boundaries of adjacent ones of the plurality of devices serving as the recesses on the front surface side of the substrate and to planarize the front surface side of the protective member (Matsushima English translation, p. 7:1-6 and fig. 2(c), after the semiconductor wafer 2 is placed on the chuck table 4, a grinding wheel 5 is brought to grind the protective film 11. The grinding includes pressing the wafer. Claim recites embedding the protective member is done by pressing the protective member by the grinding wheel. Thus, the grinding wheel 5 of Matsushima embeds the protective film 11 as a front side of the protective film 11 is planarized).
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, 2, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima et al. (JP 2005303214A, hereinafter Matsushima), in view of Hirosawa et al. (US 2020/0230773, hereinafter Hirosawa).
Regarding claim 1, Matsushima discloses a workpiece processing method for a workpiece including a substrate whose front surface is in an uneven shape with recesses and projections attributable to formation of a plurality of devices on a front surface side of the substrate (Matsushima English translation, p. 6:26-33 and fig. 2(a), Matsushima teaches a semiconductor wafer grinding method. A semiconductor wafer 2 has a plurality of metal bumps 6 on a front surface to form recesses and projections), and a protective member which adheres to each of the plurality of devices serving as the projections on the front surface side of the substrate (Matsushima English translation, p. 6:34-37, a protective film 11 [corresponds to the recited protective member] is formed on the front surface of the semiconductor wafer 2), the method comprising:
a holding step of holding a back surface side of the substrate on a chuck table (Matsushima English translation, p. 7:1-3 and fig. 2(c), a back side of the semiconductor wafer 2 is placed on a chuck table 4);
an embedding step of, after the holding step, bringing a rotating first grinding wheel closer to the chuck table, such that the first grinding wheel presses and embeds the protective member in boundaries of adjacent ones of the plurality of devices serving as the recesses on the front surface side of the substrate; and a planarization step of, bringing a rotating grinding wheel closer to the chuck table, such that the protective member is ground by the grinding wheel and the front surface side of the protective member is planarized (Matsushima English translation, p. 7:1-6 and fig. 2(c), after the semiconductor wafer 2 is placed on the chuck table 4, a grinding wheel 5 is brought to grind the protective film 11. The grinding includes pressing the wafer. Thus, the grinding wheel 5 of Matsushima embeds the protective film 11 as the front side of the protective film 11 is planarized), but does not disclose the planarization step is performed by a second grinding wheel after the embedding step, while rotating the chuck table.
Hirosawa teaches, in an analogous workpiece processing field of endeavor, the planarization step is performed by a second grinding wheel after the embedding step (¶ 0047 and 0050, a workpiece processing method comprises a rough grinding step by a rough grinding wheel 42a, followed by a finish grinding step by a finish grinding wheel 42b. Hirosawa teaches the workpiece can be processed in two steps by two different grinding wheels. Examiner notes that embedding step is done by the recited first grinding wheel, and claim does not claim that the first grinding wheel only presses the protective member without grinding the protective member at all. Because the grinding wheel is used, it would be possible that the protective member embedding step may include some degree of grinding. Because Matsushima teaches a grinding wheel can embed and planarize the protective member (see fig. 2), by combining teaching of Hirosawa with Matsushima, the embedding step and the planarization step can be performed by two different grinding wheels), while rotating the chuck table (¶ 0046-47 and fig. 3B, a chuck table 18 rotates during the grinding step).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the workpiece processing method of Matsushima to provide the first and second grinding wheels as taught by Hirosawa. Using two grinding wheels in two steps makes it easier to achieve both the planarity and processing efficiency at higher levels (Hirosawa ¶ 0053).
Regarding claim 2, Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa teaches the workpiece processing method as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising: a grinding step of, after the planarization step, grinding the back surface side of the substrate (Matsushima English translation, p. 7:7-12 and fig. 2(e), the semiconductor wafer 2 is placed on the chuck table 4 such that the protective film 11 [corresponds to the recited protective member] faces down, and then a back surface of the semiconductor wafer 2 is ground).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa teaches the workpiece processing method as in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 respectively, wherein the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel are a same grinding wheel (Matsushima English translation, p. 7:1-6 and fig. 2(c), the grinding wheel 5 is brought to grind the protective film 11 to press and grind the wafer. Thus, the same grinding wheel 5 is used).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima in view of Hirosawa, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above respectively, and in further view of Yamaguchi et al. (TW 202006858A, hereinafter Yamaguchi).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa teaches the workpiece processing method as in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 respectively, but does not disclose in the embedding step, liquid having a flow rate lower than a flow rate of liquid supplied to a contact interface between the protective member and the second grinding wheel in the planarization step is supplied to a contact interface between the protective member and the first grinding wheel.
Yamaguchi teaches, in an analogous workpiece processing field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, in the embedding step, liquid having a flow rate lower than a flow rate of liquid supplied to a contact interface between the protective member and the second grinding wheel in the planarization step is supplied to a contact interface between the protective member and the first grinding wheel (Yamaguchi English translation, p. 24:14-17, a large flow rate of polishing process liquid is preferred for polishing at high speed. Yamaguchi does not present the embedding step and the planarization step of the protective member, however, it teaches a general information of the polishing liquid in the polishing process that the greater flow rate of the polishing liquid is needed for a high-speed polishing/grinding than a low-speed polishing/grinding. Here, the embedding step requires pressing the protective member, not grinding the protective member, but the planarization step requires grinding the protective member. Therefore, it is obvious that the second grinding wheel rotates higher speed than the first grinding wheel, and it would require lower liquid flow rate in the embedding step).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa to provide the lower flow rate in the embedding step or the greater flow rate in the planarization step as taught by Yamaguchi so that the grinding surface maintains sufficient distribution of the processing liquid for effective grinding (Yamaguchi English translation, p. 24:15).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima in view of Hirosawa, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above respectively, and in further view of Yamaguchi and Priewasser (CN 108933098A).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa teaches the workpiece processing method as in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 respectively, but does not disclose liquid having a higher temperature.
Yamaguchi teaches, in an analogous workpiece processing field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, liquid having a higher temperature (Yamaguchi English translation, p. 10:22-26, a temperature control unit of a polishing/grinding processing device controls the temperature of slurry and/or chemical solution used in the polishing/grinding process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa to control the liquid temperature as taught by Yamaguchi in order to supply the polishing liquid having appropriate temperature for effective grinding procedure.
Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa and Yamaguchi does not disclose in the embedding step, liquid having a temperature higher than liquid supplied to a contact interface between the protective member and the second grinding wheel in the planarization step is supplied to a contact interface between the protective member and the first grinding wheel.
Priewasser teaches, in an analogous workpiece processing field of endeavor, in the embedding step, liquid having a temperature higher than liquid supplied to a contact interface between the protective member and the second grinding wheel in the planarization step is supplied to a contact interface between the protective member and the first grinding wheel (fig. 9 and Priewasser English translation, p. 28:32-29:10, Priewasser disclose a protective film 4 is applied to a front side of a wafer; p. 4:22-5:9, in the protective film application step, heating process is applied followed by cooling process. Thus, the higher temperature is applied in the embedding process, and the lower temperature is applied in the post-embedding step).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa and Yamaguchi to provide the higher temperature in the embedding step than the planarization step as taught by Priewasser because the high temperature allows the protective member to bond to the wafer better (Priewasser English translation, p. 4:28-32).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima in view of Hirosawa, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above respectively, and in further view of Gusev et al. (RU 2606143C1, hereinafter Gusev).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa teaches the workpiece processing method as in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 respectively, but does not disclose the first grinding wheel includes grindstones having a lower concentration than that of grindstones included in the second grinding wheel.
Gusev teaches, in an analogous workpiece processing field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the first grinding wheel includes grindstones having a lower concentration than that of grindstones included in the second grinding wheel (Gusev English translation, p. 2:16-17, in a workpiece grinding method, a pre-grinding requires a lower concentration of abrasive grains than a final grinding. Gusev does not teach the protective member preparation, however, it is a general information that grinding requires a concentration of abrasives/grindstones for a good grinding outcome. Here, the embedding step is for pressing the protective member while the planarization step is for grinding the protective member. Therefore, the second grinding wheel used in the planarization step needs higher concentration of the grindstones).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa to provide the first grinding wheel having the lower concentration grindstones as taught by Gusev because the greater concentration of abrasive results in better grinding of a workpiece.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima in view of Hirosawa, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above respectively, and in further view of Tabuchi et al. (US 2020/0391337, hereinafter Tabuchi).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa teaches the workpiece processing method as in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 respectively, but does not disclose the grindstones having different edge widths.
Tabuchi teaches, in an analogous workpiece processing field of endeavor, the grindstones having different edge widths (¶ 0040-41 and fig. 1, a grinding apparatus comprises two grinding wheels 40a, 40b for coarse grinding and finishing grinding of a wafer. Grinding abrasive stones of a grinding wheel have no limit to the shape, structure, size and so forth. Therefore, the grindstones of the grinding wheels 40a, 40b can have different sizes of edge widths).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa to provide the grindstones having different sizes as taught by Tabuchi in order to choose appropriate size of grindstones for different steps of grinding.
However, Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa and Tabuchi does not disclose the first grinding wheel includes grindstones each having an edge width smaller than that of each of grindstones included in the second grinding wheel.
In general, a bulk or main grinding is performed with large abrasives. Here, the embedding step does not perform grinding, thus it would not need a grindstone size requirement. The grindstone edge width of the first grinding wheel can be smaller than that of the second grinding wheel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa and Tabuchi to provide the second grinding wheel having the larger grindstones. Since the planarization step includes grinding the protective member, the second grinding wheel requires grindstones/abrasives, and their size need to be larger than the grindstones of the first grinding wheel so that grinding does not take too much time to be completed. The modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima in view of Hirosawa and Yamaguchi, as applied to claims 3 and 8 above respectively, and in further view of Priewasser.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa and Yamaguchi teaches the workpiece processing method as in the rejection of claims 3 and 8 respectively, but does not disclose in the embedding step, liquid having a temperature higher than liquid supplied to a contact interface between the protective member and the second grinding wheel in the planarization step is supplied to a contact interface between the protective member and the first grinding wheel.
Priewasser teaches, in an analogous workpiece processing field of endeavor, in the embedding step, liquid having a temperature higher than liquid supplied to a contact interface between the protective member and the second grinding wheel in the planarization step is supplied to a contact interface between the protective member and the first grinding wheel (Priewasser English translation, p. 4:22-5:9, in the protective film application step, heating process is applied followed by cooling process. Thus, the higher temperature is applied in the embedding process, and the lower temperature is applied in the post-embedding step. Yamaguchi teaches a temperature control unit of a polishing/grinding processing device controls the temperature of slurry and/or chemical solution used in the polishing/grinding process (Yamaguchi English translation, p. 10:22-26). Priewasser does not utilize high temperature liquid for the temperature control, but liquid temperature control method of Yamaguchi can be combined with the heating process of Priewasser to apply the higher temperature liquid in the embedding step and to apply the lower temperature liquid in the planarization step).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Matsushima as modified by Hirosawa and Yamaguchi to provide the higher temperature in the embedding step than the planarization step as taught by Priewasser because the high temperature allows the protective member to bond to the wafer better (Priewasser English translation, p. 4:28-32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §103 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 Matsushima and Hirosawa.
Prior to the claim amendments, the embedding step and the planarization step are not necessarily performed by the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel. In response to the amendments, Matsushima is cited to teach the recited steps performed by a grinding wheel.
Applicant argues Mihara does not teach or suggest the front surface of a substrate is an uneven shape with recesses and projections because Mihara does not disclose the feature. Although Examiner respectfully disagrees, the uneven shape with recesses and projections are now taught by Matsushima (see Matsushima fig. 2(a)).
Applicant argues Priewasser does not teach or suggest the grinding wheel. Applicant asserts the rubber film 52 of Priewasser used for pressing a protective film 4 is not the recited first grinding wheel. In addition, Applicant argues rationale for modifying Mihara in light of Priewasser is inadequate. Although Examiner respectfully disagrees, the newly cited Matsushima teaches the grinding wheel is used to press and grind the protective member (see Matsushima fig. 2(c)).
Applicant argues Gao fails to disclose the grinding wheel, the use of the chuck table, and pressing and embedding the protective member. Applicant further argues Gao is non-analogous art, and rationale to combine Gao with Mihara and Priewasser is inadequate.
Although Examiner respectfully disagrees, the use of grinding wheel is now taught by Matsushima in response to the claim amendments, thus the arguments are moot.
Applicant argues Cheng does not discuss the substrate having the recesses and projections on the front surface, the protective member adhering on the surface of the substrate, and grinding of the protective member. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Cheng is cited to teach planarization step. The substrate with recess and the projections and applying the protective member on the surface of the substrate are taught by Mihara and Priewasser. Yet again, the Cheng reference is not cited in the current rejections because Matsushima teaches the planarization of the protective member by the grinding wheel (see Matsushima fig. 2(c)).
Applicant argues no reference teaches or suggests the use of the same grinding wheel. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The newly cited Matsushima reference teaches the single grinding wheel 5 can press and grind the protective member (Matsushima English translation, p. 7:1-6).
Applicant argues Yamaguchi fails to disclose the embedding step, the planarization step, the flow rate of liquid during the embedding step and the planarization step. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although Yamaguchi does not disclose the same protective member application to the substrate, it teaches different flow rates of polishing process liquid which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The teaching of Yamaguchi is applicable to the embedding step and the planarization step of the instant application.
Applicant argues similarly that Yamaguchi and Priewasser fail to disclose the embedding step, the planarization step, and the temperature of liquid during the embedding step and the planarization step. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Yamaguchi teaches the temperature control of the slurry/chemical solution (Yamaguchi English translation, p. 10:22-26) and Priewasser teaches the heating during the recited embedding process and cooling after the embedding process. Thus, combination of Yamaguchi with Priewasser teaches applying the liquid of different temperature in the process of the protective member application, which is applicable to the embedding step and the planarization step of the instant application.
Applicant argues Smyth does not teach or suggest the different grinding stone edge widths of the grinding wheels. Smyth teaches grindstones of a grinding wheel may have different sizes of abrasives. But the rejection is revised with Tabuchi, which teaches the grindstones of a grinding wheel may have different size, structure, and shape. Therefore, different grinding wheels may comprise different grindstones having different edge width sizes. On the other hand, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) states change of size of a component involves only routine skill in the art, thus the grindstones of the first grinding wheel can have small edge width than those of the second grinding wheel.
Applicant argues the cited references for claim 15 do not teach the claim limitations for the same arguments addressed for claim 1. Applicant further argues one would not modify Mihara with Priewasser and Cheng because Mihara already discloses the protective member. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As Examiner explains above, the secondary references are cited to teach the protective member application to the substrate where the recited claim limitations are not fully taught by Mihara. However, in response to the amendments, Matsushima, instead of Mihara, teaches the claim limitations.
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 SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
