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
Claims 3-4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “passing through the through holes” that should be “passing through the plurality of through holes”.
Claim 3 recites “drive the ejector pins” that should be “drive the plurality of ejector pins”.
Claim 4 recites “the wafer” that should be “at least one of the wafers”
Claim 8 recites “arranged on one sides” that should be “arranged on one side”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first transfer mechanism” in claim 1, “ a second transfer mechanism” in claim 1, “a detection mechanism” in claim 1, “a jacking and separating assembly” in claims 2&3, “a detection assembly” in claim 2, and “blowing assemblies” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1 recites:
“a first transfer mechanism”. These limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as an elevating assembly and a bidirectional conveying mechanism and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [0090]) of the specifications of the instant application)
“a second transfer mechanism”. These limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as conveying the carry mechanism to the second conveying mechanism and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [0055] of the specifications of the instant application)
“a detection mechanism”. These limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a detection assembly and a jacking and separating assembly and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [0061])
Claim 2 recites:
“a jacking and separating assembly”. These limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a plurality of ejector pins and a first elevating mechanism and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [0064] of the specifications of the instant application).
“a detection assembly”. These limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a detection base plate, a plurality of detection electrodes, and an elastic piece, and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [0068] of the specifications of the instant application).
Claim 3 recites:
“a jacking and separating assembly”. These limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a plurality of ejector pins and a first elevating mechanism and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [0064] of the specifications of the instant application).
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 8-10 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 9 recites “mark an electronic tag of the carrying mechanism on which the wafer having a thickness exceeding the preset thickness range is located based on the tag editor” has an unclear sentence structure that makes in unclear to the examiner the intention of the claim. For purpose of clarity of the claim, examiner suggests amending the claim language of “is located based on the tag editor” to recite “via the tag editor”.
Claim 9 further recites “an electronic tag” in lines 2 and 4. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intended for the limitation to be different structures or the same. For the purpose of examination examiner interprets them as the same.
The term “in consistence” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in consistence” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the examiner what relationship the first and second conveyors are intended to have. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as in operable communication.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “blowing assemblies” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification describes there are blowing assemblies however, they fail to describe any structures that make up blowing assemblies. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of blowing the lifting assemblies that are not in a lifting state. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (4,946,021) in view of Izuka (2020/0130106), Yasuda (JP 2015207622 A), and Ban (6,012,966).
Regarding Claim 1, Regarding Claim 1, Murphy teaches A wafer thinning system (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), wherein the wafer thinning system comprises a first conveying mechanism (Ref. 18, Fig. 1) as well as a first grinding mechanism (Ref. 12, Fig. 1), a second grinding mechanism (Ref. 14, Fig. 1) and a detection mechanism (Ref. 32, Fig. 1) that are arranged in sequence on the first conveying mechanism (Fig. 1);
the wafer thinning system further comprises a plurality of carrying mechanisms (Ref. 22, Fig. 1) for carrying wafers (Fig. 1), and a controller (Ref. 11, Fig. 1);
the controller is configured to control the first conveying mechanism to convey the plurality of carrying mechanisms in a stepping manner ([Col. 3, Lines 15-17] describes "…also under direction of controller 11 through line 37 for indexing conveyor 18 to move workpieces 24 from workstation to workstation with stop-and-go motion…") and control the operation of the first grinding workstation, the second grinding workstation, and the detection mechanism ([Col. 3, Lines 8-13] describes "…Controller 11, which can be any suitable control means such as for example a programmable logic controller or computer system, directs the operation of workstations 12, 14, and 16…and the operation of orientation workstations 28, 30, and 32…").
Murphy fails to explicitly teach a wafer thinning system having a first transfer mechanism, a first conveying mechanism, and a second transfer mechanism arranged in sequence and a second conveying mechanism having a head end and a tail end. Izuka teaches a wafer thinning system with a conveyor, wafer grinders, and a wafer carrier and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Izuka teaches A wafer thinning system (Ref. 2, Fig. 1), wherein the wafer thinning system comprises a first transfer mechanism (Ref. 12, Fig. 1), a first conveying mechanism (Ref. 121, Fig. 1) and a second transfer mechanism (Ref. 123, Fig. 1) arranged in sequence (Fig. 1, [0064]), as well as a plurality of stations (Ref. 4,6,&8, Fig. 1) including a grinding mechanism (Ref. 4, Fig. 1) that are arranged in sequence on the first conveying mechanism (Fig. 1);
the wafer thinning system further comprises a plurality of carrying mechanisms (Ref. 9, Fig. 1) for carrying wafers ([0063] describes "a tray 9 including an ingot support part that supports an ingot and a wafer support part that supports a separated wafer), a second conveying mechanism (Ref. 122, Fig. 1) having a head end (122, Fig. 1, right side) and a tail end (122, Fig. 1, left side) connected to the first transfer mechanism and the second transfer mechanism (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wafer thinning system, as taught by Murphy, with a first transfer mechanism, a second transfer mechanism, and a second conveying mechanism, as taught by Izuka, to efficiently and automatically carry and transfer the wafer for improved production efficiency ([0009]).
Murphy teaches “Workstations 12, 14, and 16 can be any desired routine machine for carrying out an operation of the desired kind on workpieces 24. These workstations can be, for example, machining stations, such as for grinding or polishing various surfaces of the workpieces “ [col. 3, lines 19-24]. However, Murphy as modified further fails to explicitly teach a rough grinding mechanism and a fine grinding mechanism. Yasuda teaches a thinning system with multiple grinding stations and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Yasuda further teaches a system (Fig. 1) with a conveying mechanism (Ref. 30, Fig. 1) that moves a workpiece (Ref. W, Fig. 2) from a rough grinding mechanism (Ref. 50a, Fig. 1) to a fine grinding mechanism (Ref. 50b, Fig. 1) to perform grinding sequentially ([0022&0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first and second grinding mechanisms, as taught by Murphy as modified, to be a rough grinding mechanism and a fine grinding mechanism, as taught by Yasuda, to effectively process an unprocessed workpiece ([0027]) and since such a modification is merely an alternate alternative structure that would yield the predictable result of grinding an unprocessed workpiece to a desired thickness.
Murphy as modified fails to explicitly teach the controller is configured to control thickness detection on the wafers on the carrying mechanisms and when a wafer has a thickness exceeding a preset thickness range, the second transfer mechanism, the second conveying mechanism and the first transfer mechanism to cooperate with each other to transfer a carrying mechanism carrying the wafer having a thickness exceeding the preset thickness range back to a feeding end of the first conveying mechanism, and to control the fine grinding mechanism to perform fine grinding again on the wafer on the carrying mechanism and control the detection mechanism to perform thickness detection again on the wafer on the carrying mechanism when the carrying mechanism is conveyed on the first conveying mechanism in a stepping manner. Ban teaches a wafer thinning system with a controller for controlling polishing and identifying different properties of the wafer and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Ban teaches a wafer thinning system (Fig. 1) that performs a first rough polishing and a second fine polishing ([Col. 2, Lines 20-36]) with a conveying mechanism (Ref. 16a, Fig. 1) to move the wafer between rough and fine polishing and a controller (Ref. 61, Fig. 1-2) is configured to control thickness detection on the wafers (S103, Fig. 2) and when a wafer has a thickness exceeding a preset thickness range ([Col. 2, Lines 20-36], S103), the conveying mechanism carrying the wafer having a thickness exceeding the preset thickness range back to a feeding end of the first conveying mechanism, and to control the fine grinding mechanism to perform fine grinding again on the wafer on the carrying mechanism and control the detection mechanism (Ref. 31, Fig. 1, [Col. 12, Liens 56-61] describes “the defect of the wafer is inspected and the wafer is automatically returned to the step of removing the defect, and only wafers free of any defect are finally taken out of the unloading unit as products and therefore”) to perform thickness detection again on the wafer on the carrying mechanism when the carrying mechanism is conveyed on the first conveying mechanism in a stepping manner (Fig. 2, [Col. 7, Lines 6-17] describes “there is any flaw on the polished surface of the wafer is determined, and if it is determined that there is a flaw, the wafer is transported to the polishing unit”). Murphy as modified already teaches the controller provides instructions of controlling the grinding mechanisms, conveying mechanisms, and the detection mechanism to grind a substrate to a specific thickness. Ban teaches a controller sends the wafer automatically back for polishing when conditions are not met for the wafer during polishing and defects are detected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the repeated polishing upon detection, as taught by Ban, to the controller to control thickness detection on the wafers on the carrying mechanisms and when a wafer has a thickness exceeding a preset thickness range, the second transfer mechanism, the second conveying mechanism and the first transfer mechanism to cooperate with each other to transfer a carrying mechanism carrying the wafer having a thickness exceeding the preset thickness range back to a feeding end of the first conveying mechanism, and to control the fine grinding mechanism to perform fine grinding again on the wafer on the carrying mechanism and control the detection mechanism to perform thickness detection again on the wafer on the carrying mechanism when the carrying mechanism is conveyed on the first conveying mechanism in a stepping manner, of the wafer carrying system of Murphy as modified, to improve the throughput of the wafer polishing step and avoid any defective articles being included as part of the products ([Col. 13, Lines 6-11]).
Regarding Claim 10, Murphy as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Izuka further teaches wherein the first transfer mechanism is in consistence with the second transfer mechanism (Fig. 1);
the first transfer mechanism (12) comprises an elevating assembly (Ref. 168, Fig. 1, [0077] describes "an elevator") and a bidirectional conveying mechanism (Ref. 160, Fig. 1, [0077]); and
the elevating assembly (12) is configured to drive the bidirectional conveying mechanism to move up and down such that one end of the bidirectional conveying mechanism connects to the first conveying mechanism or the second conveying mechanism (Fig. 1, [0079]).
Regarding Claim 11, Murphy teaches a thinning method of wafer thinning system (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), wherein the thinning method is applied to the wafer thinning system ([Abstract]);
the wafer thinning system comprises a first conveying mechanism (Ref. 18, Fig. 1) as well as a first grinding mechanism (Ref. 12, Fig. 1), a second grinding mechanism (Ref. 22, Fig. 1) and a detection mechanism (Ref. 32, Fig. 1) that are arranged in sequence on the first conveying mechanism (Fig. 1);
the wafer thinning system further comprises a plurality of carrying mechanisms (Ref. 22, Fig. 1) for carrying wafers (Fig. 1);
the thinning method comprises the following steps:
controlling the first conveying mechanism to convey the plurality of carrying mechanisms in a stepping manner ([Col. 3, Lines 15-17] describes "…also under direction of controller 11 through line 37 for indexing conveyor 18 to move workpieces 24 from workstation to workstation with stop-and-go motion…") and control the operation of the first grinding workstation, the second grinding workstation, and the detection mechanism ([Col. 3, Lines 8-13] describes "…Controller 11, which can be any suitable control means such as for example a programmable logic controller or computer system, directs the operation of workstations 12, 14, and 16…and the operation of orientation workstations 28, 30, and 32…").
Murphy fails to explicitly teach a wafer thinning system having a first transfer mechanism, a first conveying mechanism, and a second transfer mechanism arranged in sequence and a second conveying mechanism having a head end and a tail end. Izuka teaches a wafer thinning system with a conveyor, wafer grinders, and a wafer carrier and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Izuka teaches A wafer thinning system (Ref. 2, Fig. 1), wherein the wafer thinning system comprises a first transfer mechanism (Ref. 12, Fig. 1), a first conveying mechanism (Ref. 121, Fig. 1) and a second transfer mechanism (Ref. 123, Fig. 1) arranged in sequence (Fig. 1, [0064]), as well as a plurality of stations (Ref. 4,6,&8, Fig. 1) including a grinding mechanism (Ref. 4, Fig. 1) that are arranged in sequence on the first conveying mechanism (Fig. 1);
the wafer thinning system further comprises a plurality of carrying mechanisms (Ref. 9, Fig. 1) for carrying wafers ([0063] describes "a tray 9 including an ingot support part that supports an ingot and a wafer support part that supports a separated wafer), a second conveying mechanism (Ref. 122, Fig. 1) having a head end (122, Fig. 1, right side) and a tail end (122, Fig. 1, left side) connected to the first transfer mechanism and the second transfer mechanism (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wafer thinning system, as taught by Murphy, with a first transfer mechanism, a second transfer mechanism, and a second conveying mechanism, as taught by Izuka, to efficiently and automatically carry and transfer the wafer for improved production efficiency ([0009]).
Murphy teaches “Workstations 12, 14, and 16 can be any desired routine machine for carrying out an operation of the desired kind on workpieces 24. These workstations can be, for example, machining stations, such as for grinding or polishing various surfaces of the workpieces “ [col. 3, lines 19-24]. However, Murphy as modified further fails to explicitly teach a rough grinding mechanism and a fine grinding mechanism. Yasuda teaches a thinning system with multiple grinding stations and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Yasuda further teaches a system (Fig. 1) with a conveying mechanism (Ref. 30, Fig. 1) that moves a workpiece (Ref. W, Fig. 2) from a rough grinding mechanism (Ref. 50a, Fig. 1) to a fine grinding mechanism (Ref. 50b, Fig. 1) to perform grinding sequentially ([0022&0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first and second grinding mechanisms, as taught by Murphy as modified, to be a rough grinding mechanism and a fine grinding mechanism, as taught by Yasuda, to effectively process an unprocessed workpiece ([0027]) and since such a modification is merely an alternate alternative structure that would yield the predictable result of grinding an unprocessed workpiece to a desired thickness.
Murphy as modified fails to explicitly teach the controller is configured to control thickness detection on the wafers on the carrying mechanisms and when a wafer has a thickness exceeding a preset thickness range, the second transfer mechanism, the second conveying mechanism and the first transfer mechanism to cooperate with each other to transfer a carrying mechanism carrying the wafer having a thickness exceeding the preset thickness range back to a feeding end of the first conveying mechanism, and to control the fine grinding mechanism to perform fine grinding again on the wafer on the carrying mechanism and control the detection mechanism to perform thickness detection again on the wafer on the carrying mechanism when the carrying mechanism is conveyed on the first conveying mechanism in a stepping manner. Ban teaches a wafer thinning system with a controller for controlling polishing and identifying different properties of the wafer and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Ban teaches a wafer thinning system (Fig. 1) that performs a first rough polishing and a second fine polishing ([Col. 2, Lines 20-36]) with a conveying mechanism (Ref. 16a, Fig. 1) to move the wafer between rough and fine polishing and a controller (Ref. 61, Fig. 1-2) is configured to control thickness detection on the wafers (S103, Fig. 2) and when a wafer has a thickness exceeding a preset thickness range ([Col. 2, Lines 20-36], S103), the conveying mechanism carrying the wafer having a thickness exceeding the preset thickness range back to a feeding end of the first conveying mechanism, and to control the fine grinding mechanism to perform fine grinding again on the wafer on the carrying mechanism and control the detection mechanism (Ref. 31, Fig. 1, [Col. 12, Liens 56-61] describes “the defect of the wafer is inspected and the wafer is automatically returned to the step of removing the defect, and only wafers free of any defect are finally taken out of the unloading unit as products and therefore”) to perform thickness detection again on the wafer on the carrying mechanism when the carrying mechanism is conveyed on the first conveying mechanism in a stepping manner (Fig. 2, [Col. 7, Lines 6-17] describes “there is any flaw on the polished surface of the wafer is determined, and if it is determined that there is a flaw, the wafer is transported to the polishing unit”). Murphy as modified already teaches the controller provides instructions of controlling the grinding mechanisms, conveying mechanisms, and the detection mechanism to grind a substrate to a specific thickness. Ban teaches a controller sends the wafer automatically back for polishing when conditions are not met for the wafer during polishing and defects are detected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the repeated polishing upon detection, as taught by Ban, to the controller to control thickness detection on the wafers on the carrying mechanisms and when a wafer has a thickness exceeding a preset thickness range, the second transfer mechanism, the second conveying mechanism and the first transfer mechanism to cooperate with each other to transfer a carrying mechanism carrying the wafer having a thickness exceeding the preset thickness range back to a feeding end of the first conveying mechanism, and to control the fine grinding mechanism to perform fine grinding again on the wafer on the carrying mechanism and control the detection mechanism to perform thickness detection again on the wafer on the carrying mechanism when the carrying mechanism is conveyed on the first conveying mechanism in a stepping manner, of the wafer carrying system of Murphy as modified, to improve the throughput of the wafer polishing step and avoid any defective articles being included as part of the products ([Col. 13, Lines 6-11]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Izuka, Yasuda, and Ban as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (CN104875086A).
Regarding Claim 7, Murphy as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach two lifting assemblies that are arranged below the rough grinding mechanism and the fine grinding mechanism, respectively, and are configured to lift the carrying mechanisms on the first conveying mechanism to implement rough grinding in cooperation with the rough grinding mechanism and to implement fine grinding in cooperation with the fine grinding mechanism, respectively. Wu teaches a substrate grinding system with a conveyor mechanism and grinding apparatus and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to grind and abrade a substrate. Wu teaches a lifting assembly (Ref. 3, Fig. 1) that are arranged below the grinding mechanism (Ref. 4, Fig. 1) and are configured to lift the carrying mechanisms on the first conveying mechanism to implement grinding (Fig. 1, [Pg. 4 of the translation 2)-5) & Pg. 6, Preferred embodiment & Abstract] describes “ the lifting mechanism is connected with a grinding mechanism is configured to make potassium superoxide medicine plate is in the edging position in the lifting process is grinding the matching relationship of the edge”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wafer cleaning system two grinding mechanisms, as taught by Murphy as modified, with lifting assemblies under the conveyor, as taught by Wu, to provide reliable implementation of grinding and to provide the predictable result of having the substrate come in contact with the grinding mechanism.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Izuka, Yasuda, and Ban as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hirakawa (2016/0296982).
Regarding Claim 8, Murphy as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach blowing assemblies. Hirakawa teaches a substrate grinding system with a grinding mechanism and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Hirakawa teaches blowing assemblies ([0057] describes blowing foreign substances) to blow when not in use ([0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wafer thinning system, as taught by Murphy as modified, with blowing assemblies are arranged on one sides of the lifting assemblies and the controller is configured to control the blowing assemblies to blow the lifting assemblies that are not in a lifting state, as taught by Hirakawa, to remove foreign substances from the lifting assemblies when not in use.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR Reference 2 (KR 100556328 B1).
Regarding Claim 9, Murphy as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the carrying mechanisms each comprise an electronic tag, the detection mechanism comprises a tag editor, and the rough grinding mechanism comprises a tag recognizer and the controller is further configured to mark an electronic tag of the carrying mechanism on which the wafer having a thickness exceeding the preset thickness range is located based on the tag editor, so as to allow the rough grinding mechanism to skip rough grinding by recognizing the electronic tag based on the tag recognizer. KR Reference 2 teaches a wafer thinning system with a conveyor to different stations and a wafer carrier and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. KR Reference 2 teaches a wafer carrier with a carrier ID that is identified at each work station and can be edited after inspection (KR Reference 2 [Pg. 15, para 3 & Pg. 16 para 2] of the translation describes “…loading stage that reads a carrier ID and transmits it to the central control unit when the wafer to be worked on is loaded by a carrier; a work stage that receives a work content ID from the central control unit corresponding to the carrier ID and performs a specific processing process on the wafer loaded on the loading stage; and an unloading stage that receives the wafer on which the corresponding work process has been performed by the work stage and transmits the contents of the work process to the central control unit… the wafer ID of the wafer on which the operation was performed is identified by the barcode reader reading the carrier ID….”) and a controller that controls each stage for the wafers (KR Reference 2 [Pg. 16, para 3] of the translation describes “…a control unit that controls the operation of each device, and controls the operation of the loading stage, work stage, and unloading stage, and each stage performs communication with a central control unit under the control of the control unit…”) that is edited . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the carrying mechanisms, detection mechanisms, and rough grinding mechanisms, with an electronic tag, a tag editor, and a tag recognizer, respectively, as taught by KR Reference 2, to provide better quality control and tracking of the work process performed on the wafer based upon the unique number.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 2, Murphy (4,946,021, presented above), Izuka (2020/0130106, presented above), Pan (2004/0007325, presented above) and Lafond (5,884,392), the closest prior arts of record, teaches some of the limitations of the claim, but alone or in combination with the preceding claim fails to teach, suggest, or make obvious the combination of recited features of claim.
Murphy, one of the closest prior arts of record teaches a detection mechanism with a detection assembly, but alone or in combination, fails to explicitly fails to teach, suggest, or make obvious the detection mechanism comprises a jacking a separating assembly and a detection assembly, as particularly required by the claims and in combination with the claim.
Pan, teaches a detection mechanism with a detection assembly, but alone or in combination, fails to explicitly fails to teach, suggest, or make obvious the detection mechanism comprises a jacking a separating assembly, the jacking and separating assembly is configured to jack and separate the wafers on the carrying mechanisms located in the detection mechanism for thickness detection of the wafers in cooperation with the detection assembly, as particularly required by the claims and in combination with the claim.
Izuka, one of the closest prior arts of record teaches a detection mechanism with a jacking and separating assembly, but alone or in combination, fails to explicitly fails to teach, suggest, or make obvious the detection mechanism comprises a jacking a separating assembly and a detection assembly, and the jacking and separating assembly is configured to jack and separate the wafers on the carrying mechanisms located in the detection mechanism for thickness detection of the wafers in cooperation with the detection assembly, as particularly required by the claims and in combination with the claim.
Further, while Pan teaches the detection assembly based upon thickness of the wafer and Izuka teaches a detection assembly with a jacking and separating assembly, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art. Each detection mechanism of each prior art has a clear function and no indications that the jacking and separating assembly would cooperate with a detection assembly in the same mechanism. A reconstruction to have the assemblies work together would be based upon hindsight reasoning.
Lafond, one of the closest prior arts of record teaches a detection mechanism with a detection assembly, but alone or in combination, fails to explicitly fails to teach, suggest, or make obvious the detection mechanism comprises a jacking a separating assembly and a detection assembly, as particularly required by the claims and in combination with the claim.
Claims 3-6 would be allowed to due to being dependent upon an allowed claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pan (2004/0007325), Lott (4,052,175), Ishihara (5,953,591), and Sekiya (2018/0099377) teaches a wafer thinning system with conveying mechanisms and grinders and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights