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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an outside the spindle assembly” should read “an outside of the spindle assembly”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is 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 claim 15, the claim recites “a circumferential direction” in the second line. There is already antecedent basis for “a circumferential direction of the grinding wheel in claim 8, from which claim 15 depends. It is unclear if these circumferential directions are the same or different from each other. For the purposes of this examination, “a circumferential direction” will be interpreted as “the circumferential direction of the grinding wheel” as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
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.
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.
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(s) 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (JP 2020-072172, see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a back grinding apparatus comprising: a grinding wheel (36) that is rotatable ([0024]) and movable in a vertical direction ([0022]), the grinding wheel comprising at least one abrasive (40); and a grinding gauge (50) below the grinding wheel and configured to measure a wear amount of the at least one abrasive ([0029]; measures tip position which is indicative of wear), wherein the grinding gauge comprises: a measuring body (elements 51, 53); and a photoelectric sensor (elements 65, 67) supported by the measuring body and configured to determine the wear amount of the at least one abrasive ([0029]; measures tip position which is indicative of wear), and wherein the photoelectric sensor comprises: at least one light emitter (65); and at least one light receiver (67) spaced apart from the at least one light emitter in a horizontal direction (fig 5) and configured to receive light emitted from the at least one light emitter ([0031]).
Regarding claims 3-4, Watanabe further discloses the measuring body comprises: an upper measuring body (51) comprising the photoelectric sensor; a lower measuring body (57) supporting the upper measuring body, and an actuator (55) configured to move the photoelectric sensor relative to the lower measuring body in the vertical direction ([0033]), wherein the upper measuring body comprises a first upper measuring body component (61) and a second upper measuring body component (63), wherein the at least one light emitter (65) is provided on the first upper measuring body component, and wherein the at least one light receiver (67) is provided on the second upper measuring body component (fig 5); and the measuring body comprises: an upper measuring body (51) comprising the photoelectric sensor, a lower measuring body (57) supporting the upper measuring body, and an actuator (55) configured to move the upper measuring body and the lower measuring body in the vertical direction ([0033]; fig 5).
Regarding claims 6-7 Watanabe further discloses the grinding wheel further comprises a wheel body (38) supporting the grinding wheel, wherein the at least one abrasive comprises a plurality of abrasives (40; figs 3, 4), and wherein the plurality of abrasives are spaced apart in a circumferential direction on a first surface (bottom surface) of the wheel body (as shown in fig 3); wherein the measuring body extends across the grinding wheel (extends across circumferential area of wheel; fig 4), and wherein the at least one light emitter (65) and the at least one light receiver (67) are spaced apart such that the plurality of abrasives are positioned between the at least one light emitter and the at least one light receiver ([0043]; due to rotation of wheel, each abrasive will in turn be positioned between the emitter and receiver).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe discloses a back grinding apparatus comprising: a spindle assembly (elements 16, 26) that is rotatable (spindle 32 of assembly is rotatable) and movable in a vertical direction ([0023]); and a grinding gauge (50) below the spindle assembly, wherein the spindle assembly comprises: a driver (24) configured to move the spindle assembly in the vertical direction ([0022]); and a grinding wheel (36) provided on a lower portion of the driver (fig 3), wherein the grinding wheel comprises a plurality of abrasives (40; fig 3) on a first surface of the grinding wheel (provided on bottom surface of element 38; fig 4) and spaced apart in a circumferential direction of the grinding wheel (as shown in fig 3), wherein the grinding gauge (50) comprises a measuring body (elements 51, 53); and a photoelectric sensor (elements 65, 67) provided on the measuring body and configured to determine a wear amount of at least one of the plurality of abrasives ([0029]; measures tip position which is indicative of wear), wherein the photoelectric sensor comprises: at least one light emitter (65); and at least one light receiver (67) spaced apart from the at least one light emitter in a horizontal direction (fig 5) and wherein the plurality of abrasives are between the at least one light emitter and the at least one light receiver ([0043]; due to rotation of wheel, each abrasive will in turn be positioned between the emitter and receiver).
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe further discloses a rotatably chuck table (18) configured to support a substrate (1; fig 4).
Regarding claims 11-12, Watanabe further discloses the measuring body comprises: an upper measuring body (51) comprising the photoelectric sensor and a lower measuring body (57) supporting the upper measuring body; the grinding gauge further comprising an actuator (55) connected to the photoelectric sensor configured to move the photoelectric sensor relative to the lower measuring body in the vertical direction ([0033]; fig 5).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Watanabe further discloses the measuring body comprises: an upper measuring body (elements 61 and 63) comprising the photoelectric sensor and a lower measuring body (fig 5 unlabeled connecting piece between elements 61 and 63) supporting the upper measuring body; the grinding gauge further comprising an actuator (55) provided on the lower measuring body (fig 5) and configured to move the upper measuring body and the lower measuring body in the vertical direction ([0033]; fig 5).
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe further discloses the measuring body extends across the grinding wheel (extends across circumferential area of wheel; fig 4), and wherein the at least one light emitter (65) and the at least one light receiver (67) are spaced apart such that the plurality of abrasives are positioned between the at least one light emitter and the at least one light receiver ([0043]; due to rotation of wheel, each abrasive will in turn be positioned between the emitter and receiver).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higaki (JP 2012-148387, see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 17, Higaki discloses a wear amount measuring method comprising: providing a grinding gauge (41) below a grinding wheel (32); and measuring a wear amount of the grinding wheel ([0021]), wherein the grinding wheel comprises: a wheel body (320); and a plurality of abrasives (321) on a bottom surface of the wheel body (as shown in fig 3) and spaced apart along an edge of the wheel body (shown in fig 4), wherein the grinding gauge comprises: a measuring body (410); at least one light emitter (411); and at least one light receiver (412) spaced apart from the at least one light emitter in a horizontal direction, wherein providing the grinding gauge below the grinding wheel comprises positioning at least one of the plurality of abrasives between the at least one light emitter and the at least one light receiver (as shown in fig 3), and wherein measuring the wear amount of the grinding wheel comprises: emitting light by the at least one light emitter toward at least one of the plurality of abrasives; and measuring a wear amount of the at least one of the plurality of abrasives based on the light emitted by the at least one light emitter (as described [0021]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Yamanaka (JP 2017-127936, see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe teaches all the elements of claim 1 as described above. Watanabe does not teach the grinding gauge comprising a rotary motor connected to the measuring body configured to rotate the measuring body. Yamanaka teaches a back grinding apparatus including a grinding gauge (30) comprises a rotary motor (322) connected to a measuring body (31; fig 2), the rotary motor being configured to rotate the measuring body ([0016]) and cause the grinding gauge to move to an outside of the grinding wheel ([0016]; position shown in fig 1). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a motor connected to the measuring body of Watanabe configured to rotate the measuring body to move the grinding gauge to an outside of the grinding wheel in order to achieve the predictable result of keeping the gauge from interfering with the grinding process while allowing measurement of the wheel between wafers as taught by Yamanaka ([0021]).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe teaches all the elements of claim 8 as described above. Watanabe does not teach the grinding gauge comprising a rotary motor configured to rotate the measuring body. Yamanaka teaches a back grinding apparatus including a grinding gauge (30) comprises a rotary motor (322) connected to a measuring body (31; fig 2), the rotary motor being configured to rotate the measuring body ([0016]) and cause the grinding gauge to move to an outside of the grinding wheel ([0016]; position shown in fig 1). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a motor to the measuring body of Watanabe configured to rotate the measuring body to move the grinding gauge to an outside of the grinding wheel in order to achieve the predictable result of keeping the gauge from interfering with the grinding process while allowing measurement of the wheel between wafers as taught by Yamanaka ([0021]).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 2022-0156379, see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Watanabe does not teach a plurality of light emitters and light receivers arranged vertically. Kim teaches a wafer grinding apparatus including a photoelectric sensor comprising a plurality of light emitters (20a) arranged vertically, and a plurality of light receivers (30a) arranged vertically (fig 3; [0066]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of light emitters and receivers in place of the single emitter and receiver of Watanabe, as a plurality of emitters and receivers allows the gauge to measure a larger area of the abrasive as taught by Kim ([0065]).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Watanabe does not teach a plurality of light emitters and light receivers. Kim teaches a wafer grinding apparatus including a photoelectric sensor comprising a plurality of light emitters (20a), and a plurality of light receivers (30a; fig 3; [0066]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of light emitters and receivers as the at least one emitter and receiver of Watanabe, as a plurality of emitters and receivers allows the gauge to measure a larger area of the abrasive as taught by Kim ([0065]).
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higaki (JP 2012-148387, see provided machine translation) alone.
Regarding claim 18, Higaki teaches all the elements of claim 17 as described above. Higaki further teaches the grinding wheel, light emitter, and light receiver moving in a vertical direction ([0014], [0022]; light emitter and receiver are fixed to grinding means which moves vertically). While Higaki does not explicitly describe an actuator for causing the movement in the vertical direction, Higaki discloses that the grinding wheel moves vertically relative to the workpiece to effect grinding ([0014]) and explicitly describes that grinding machines of this type in the prior art include actuators for this purpose ([0002]; “grindstone feeding device”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an actuator to move the grinding wheel of Higaki in the vertical direction, which in turn moves the emitter and receiver vertically, as actuators are known to apply pressure against the workpiece to achieve the purpose of the machine of grinding the workpiece as taught by Higaki ([0002]).
Regarding claim 20, Higaki teaches all the elements of claim 17 as described above. Higaki further teaches the grinding wheel moving in a vertical direction ([0014], [0022]), and wherein measuring the wear amount of the grinding wheel further comprises moving the grinding wheel in the vertical direction after light is emitted form the at least one light emitter ([0022]; measurement occurs during vertical movement of the grinding wheel). While Higaki does not explicitly describe a driver for moving the grinding wheel in the vertical direction, Higaki discloses that the grinding wheel moves vertically relative to the workpiece to effect grinding ([0014]) and explicitly describes that grinding machines of this type in the prior art include drivers for this purpose ([0002]; “grindstone feeding device”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a driver to move the grinding wheel of Higaki in the vertical direction, as drivers are known to apply pressure against the workpiece to achieve the purpose of the machine of grinding the workpiece as taught by Higaki ([0002]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higaki as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 2022-0156379, see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 19, Higaki teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as described above. Higaki does not teach a plurality of light emitters and light receivers arranged vertically. Kim teaches a wafer grinding method including using including a photoelectric sensor comprising a plurality of light emitters (20a) arranged vertically, and a plurality of light receivers (30a) arranged vertically (fig 3; [0066]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of light emitters and receivers in place of the single emitter and receiver of Higaki, as a plurality of emitters and receivers allows the gauge to measure a larger area of the abrasive as taught by Kim ([0065]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 15, Watanabe appears to be the closest prior art. While Watanabe teaches many of the claimed features as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Watanabe does not teach the measuring body having an arc shape extending in the circumferential direction of the grinding wheel, with its center coincident with a center of the grinding wheel and having a radius greater than a radius of the grinding wheel. While arc shapes surrounding the measured target are generally known in the art of tool measurement (see US 9403255 fig 22 from IDS), there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to apply this shape to a measuring body with a light emitter and receiver for measuring wear of a grinding wheel. There is nothing in the prior art which would render such a modification obvious for a person of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar grinding apparatuses and methods are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723