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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Group I (claims 1-7), drawn to a jig for use in manufacturing a wafer from an ingot, in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected method of manufacturing a plurality of wafers from each of a plurality of ingot units (Group II).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Japanese Application JP2023-002403 dated 01/11/2023 and applicant has filed a certified copy of this Japanese application on 01/26/2024.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; the following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for.";and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites “a holding mechanism for holding the ingot”. The three prong tests are:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or a generic placeholder (mechanism),
(B) the term “means” is modified by functional language (for holding),
(C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
All three prongs are met and therefore this claim limitation is going to be interpreted to invoke 35 USC 112f; par. 0044 of the specification reveals “the recess 10 and the adhesive layer 12 jointly function as a holding mechanism 14 for holding the ingot 1” (first embodiment);par. 0052 of the specification reveals “peel-off layer 13” is the holding mechanism (second embodiment);and par. 0089 of the specification reveals the holding mechanism is a suction mechanism (third embodiment).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwakata (US 6718223 B1).
Claim 1 recites a jig that is used for manufacturing a wafer from an ingot and for being delivered while being integrated with the ingot. More limiting the features and relationship between the jig and the ingot and wafer mount to mere components associated with the intended use of the recited jig. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02. Thus, the prior art only needs to teach the recited components of the jig.Iwakata teaches (Fig. 6) a jig comprising: a base (base comprises ring frame 6 and adhesive sheet 7) having a holding mechanism (adhesive sheet 7) for holding the ingot (wafer) such that the ingot protrudes therefrom (wafer protrudes from top surface of 7 of the base 6, 7); and an information recording member (data carrier 1) fixed to the base (fixed to top surface of 7 of the base 6, 7) for recording individual information of the ingot identifiably therein (col. 5, lines 1-33: “ information regarding the condition of the semiconductor wafer and the level of quality of each individual circuit and information regarding the data required for a process control are inputted in the data carrier”; also see col. 6, 52-62);jig of Iwakata is used in manufacturing a wafer (by etching process and the lift-off process on semiconductor wafer) from an ingot (wafer before being etch/lift up process) and for being delivered while being integrated with the ingot (the processed wafer and ingot (wafer before processing) are integrated).
PNG
media_image1.png
786
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Iwakata teaches (Fig. 6) the base has a disk-shaped recess defined therein that has a predetermined depth (depth from top surface of 6 to top surface of 7) for accommodating a bottom portion of the ingot therein (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Iwakata teaches the information recording member includes a plate capable of indicating on a surface thereof information represented by one or more combined of colors, symbols, numerals, letters, figures, patterns, pictures, and two-dimensional codes (barcode plate in col. 1, lines 23-57).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwakata in view of Mitarai (US 20040016504 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Iwakata teaches the holding mechanism includes an adhesive layer disposed on the holding surface
Mitarai teaches a ring shaped jig 1 with a holding mechanism includes an adhesive layer disposed on the holding surface and made of an ultraviolet-curable resin having bonding power that is lowered when irradiated with ultraviolet rays (5), and the ingot (3a) is held on the holding surface with the adhesive layer interposed therebetween before the adhesive layer is irradiated with ultraviolet rays (par. 88).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ultraviolet-curable resin for adhesive layer for a “high adhesion strength” (see par. 0090).
Regarding claim 4, Iwakata teaches (Fig. 6 above) the adhesive layer (7) disposed on the holding surface has a thickness smaller than the predetermined depth of the recess (Fig. 6 shows thickness of 7 is less than thickness/depth of 6).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwakata in view of Uland (US 20180253632 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7, Iwakata teaches the information recording member (data carrier 1) includes an integrated circuit tag (col. 9, lines 10-15: “IC chip”) for recording individual information that is read or written via (col. 5, lines 1-33: “ information regarding the condition of the semiconductor wafer and the level of quality of each individual circuit and information regarding the data required for a process control are inputted in the data carrier”; also see col. 6, 52-62); the integrated circuit tag is capable of recording information with respect to manufacture of the wafer in addition to the individual information (col. 5, lines 41-49).
Uland teaches connectable smart label or tag having an integrated circuit IC with wireless communication (see par. 0016, 0019).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wireless communication for the data carrier of Iwakata for easier updates (par. 0115).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm EST.
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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights