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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed January 4, 2024. Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-004679, filed January 16, 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 4, 2024 has been placed in the application file and is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed with the application on January 4, 2024 are accepted.
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 4 and 5 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 4 recites the limitation "the groove formed by the main processing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted as “the dicing groove formed by the main processing” because the limitation “a dicing groove” was introduced in claim 3, from which claim 4 depends.
Regarding claim 5, the language of claim 5 is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement. See MPEP 2173.02. Specifically, it is unclear whether the claimed “first groove” refers to “the inspection groove” recited in claim 1, and it is unclear whether “the second groove” refers to “the dicing groove” recited in claim 3. For examination purposes, “the first groove” and “the second groove” will be interpreted as “the inspection groove” and “the dicing groove”, as recited in claims 1 and 3, from which claim 5 depends. It is furthermore unclear whether “the first inspection groove” refers to “the first groove” or to a single instance of “the inspection groove” in an embodiment comprising multiple inspection grooves. For similar reasons, it is unclear whether “the second inspection groove” refers to “the dicing groove” recited in claim 3, or to a single instance of “the inspection groove” in an embodiment comprising multiple inspection grooves. For examination purposes, “the first inspection groove” and “the second inspection groove” will be interpreted as referring to additional instances of “the inspection groove” and “the dicing groove” in an embodiment comprising multiple inspection grooves. Support for this interpretation can be found, for example, in FIG. 7, and associated text, of Applicant’s disclosure. This rejection may be overcome by amending claim 5 to clarify Applicant’s intended meaning.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al., US 2022/0258369 A1 (hereinafter Kojima) in view of Schönleber et al., US 2018/0164089 A1 (hereinafter Schönleber).
Regarding claim 1, Kojima teaches: A dicing groove inspecting method comprising: forming an inspection groove (Kojima, FIG. 8 shows forming first processed groove 13a [the inspection groove], [0068]) by performing test cutting on a wafer using a dicing device equipped with an observation unit (Kojima, FIG. 1 shows cutting apparatus 2 [the dicing device] equipped with image capturing unit 86 a [the observation unit], [0034-0035; 0059]), such that the inspection groove having a depth (Kojima, FIG. 8, predetermined depth 23, [0068]) (Kojima, FIG. 9, “the upper image capturing unit 86a [the observation unit] captures, with visible light, an image of the first processed groove 13a [the inspection groove formed on the wafer by the test cutting],” this measurement is used to detect a deviation, i.e., measurement, of the first processed groove 13a [the inspection groove] during the first kerf checking step S32, [0069]).
Kojima is silent regarding: the inspection groove having a depth equal to or smaller than a measurement limit depth capable of measuring the inside of the inspection groove by the observation unit is formed on the wafer. However, Kojima teaches that the first processed groove 13a [the inspection groove] is formed to a predetermined depth 23 [a depth] and then measured by the image capturing unit 86 a [the observation unit] (Kojima, [0069]). Additionally, Kojima teaches that “The depth 23 [the depth of the inspection groove] … may be adjusted to any of various depths depending on the workpiece 11 [the wafer],” (Kojima, [0068]). Applicant’s disclosure defines the measurement limit depth as “the maximum depth value capable of measuring the inside of the groove by the observation unit,” [0034]. Applicant’s disclosure discusses measurement limit depth in reference to the aspect ratio of the saw blade width, i.e., the groove width, and depth, and provides examples for measurement limit depth corresponding to aspect ratios below 4 (see FIGs 1, 2, [0034-0045]). Schönleber, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a measurement device for “precisely measuring deep trenches or trenches with a high aspect ratio, in particular with an aspect ratio, i.e. with a ratio of the trench depth to the trench width, above 50,” (Schönleber, see FIG. 20, [0298]).
Therefore, because Kojima teaches measurement of the first processed groove 13a [the inspection groove] having any of various depths during the first kerf checking step S32, shown in FIG. 7 and associated text, it would have been understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the process steps taught by Kojima would, implicitly, be within the capabilities of the disclosed cutting apparatus 2 [the dicing device] and image capturing unit 86 a [the observation unit], [0034-0035; 0059], e.g., Kojima would not teach a process step that would be impossible to perform using the disclosed apparatus. Additionally, the measurement device taught by Schönleber is capable of a measurement limit depth with an aspect ratio above 50, which is over an order of magnitude greater than the measurement limit depth disclosed by Applicant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schönleber with the teachings of Kojima, arriving at Applicant’s claimed invention with predictable results and without undue experimentation. The motivation for doing so would be, as expressly recognized by Schönleber, to precisely measure high aspect ratio trenches, analogous to the claimed inspection groove, thereby improving manufacturing process accuracy, resulting in fewer device defects.
Regarding claim 2, Kojima in view of Schönleber teaches: The dicing groove inspecting method according to claim 1, wherein a depth of the inspection groove formed by the test cutting (Kojima, FIGs. 8-16B, predetermined depth 23, [0068]; Schönleber, FIG. 20, trench 2, [0295]) is determined according to an aspect ratio obtained in advance for the observation unit (Kojima, upper image capturing unit 86a [the observation unit] performs first kerf checking step S32, based on captured image of predetermined depth and width of first processed groove 13a, i.e., the aspect ratio obtained in advance, [0069]) and corresponding to a ratio of the measurement limit depth to a width of the groove on the surface of the wafer (Schönleber, see FIG. 20, “an aspect ratio, i.e. with a ratio of the trench depth to the trench width,” [0298]).
Regarding claim 3, Kojima in view of Schönleber teaches: A dicing method of performing an adjustment work for the dicing device (Kojima, see FIG. 7, correcting steps, i.e., an adjustment, includes first hairline adjustment step S33, [0081]) on the basis of a result obtained by measuring the inside of the inspection groove using the dicing groove inspecting method according to claim 1 (Kojima, FIG. 7 shows flowchart of processing sequence, including performing first hairline adjustment step S33 [the adjustment work] on the basis of measurement obtained during first kerf checking step S32 [the result obtained by measuring the inside of the inspection groove], [0081]) and forming a dicing groove at a position of the wafer overlapping the inspection groove by main processing of the wafer (Kojima, FIGs. 12-15 show cut groove 13b [the dicing groove] formed at a position of workpiece 11 [the wafer] overlapping with central line 13a of first processed groove [the inspection groove] during wafer processing, [0061]).
Regarding claim 4, insofar as the claim can be understood in view of the 35 USC 112 rejections or claim objections above, Kojima in view of Schönleber teaches: The dicing method according to claim 3, wherein a depth of the dicing groove formed by the main processing (Kojima, FIGs. 12-15 show cut groove 13b [the dicing groove] formed during wafer processing, i.e., formed by the main processing, is approximately equal to the thickness of workpiece 11 [the wafer]; cut groove 13b [the dicing groove] extends from upper surface of workpiece 11 [the wafer] through thickness of workpiece 11 [the wafer] and into upper surface of tape 17) is deeper than a depth of the inspection groove (Kojima, FIG. 11 shows depth 23 [the depth of the inspection groove] is less than thickness of workpiece 11 [the wafer], [0068]).
Regarding claim 5, insofar as the claim can be understood in view of the 35 USC 112 rejections or claim objections above, Kojima in view of Schönleber teaches: The dicing method according to claim 3, wherein when a first groove (Kojima, FIG. 11 shows forming multiple instances of first processed groove 13a [the inspection groove], [0068]) and a second groove which is narrower and deeper than the first groove (Kojima, FIGs. 12-15, multiple instances of cut groove 13b [the dicing groove]) are sequentially formed on the wafer in the main processing (Kojima, FIG. 7, “first processed grooves 13 a and second processed grooves 13 b, are successively formed in the workpiece 11 by the first cutting blade 84 a and the second cutting blade 84 b,” [0067]), the inspection groove includes a first inspection groove which has the same width as that of the first groove and has a depth equal to or smaller than the measurement limit depth (Kojima, FIG. 11, multiple instances of first processed groove 13a [the inspection groove] having predetermined depth23, i.e., equal to or smaller than the measurement limit depth) according to a width of the first groove and a second inspection groove which has the same width as that of the second groove and is deeper than the first inspection groove (Kojima, FIGs. 15 shows multiple instances of cut groove 13b [the second inspection groove]), wherein the first groove formed by the main processing of the wafer (Kojima, FIGs. 12-15 show cut groove 13b [the first groove] formed during wafer processing) is formed to overlap the first inspection groove (Kojima, see FIGs. 12-15), and wherein a depth of the first groove is deeper than the second inspection groove (depth shown extending from upper surface of workpiece 11 [the wafer] through thickness of workpiece 11 [the wafer] and into upper surface of tape 17).
Kojima, FIG. 11 shows multiple instances of first processed groove 13a formed on wafer, analogous to the first inspection groove and the second inspection groove. Kojima teaches that the depth 23 [the depth of the inspection groove] may be adjusted to any of various depths depending on the workpiece 11 [the wafer], [0068]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Kojima in view of Schönleber insofar as selecting the appropriate depth of each groove from the finite number of predictable possible solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, absent a showing of new or unexpected results, mere duplication of parts, as with Applicant’s claimed first inspection groove and second inspection groove, is a common practice requiring only ordinary skill in the art and has no patentable significance absent a showing of new and unexpected results, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP 2144.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK NIELSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 A.M. - 5:30 P.M..
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, DALE E PAGE can be reached at (571) 270-7877. 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.
/D.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights