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 of the Claims
This is a final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 06/03/2026. Claims 1-6 are pending in the current office action. Claim 5 has been amended by the applicant and Claim 6 is a new claim. Claims 1-4 remain withdrawn.
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yana et al. (JP-2021197482-A, machine translation) in view of Isojima et al. (JP-2020009636-A, machine translation) and Guo et al. (CN-112876929-A, machine translation).
Regarding Claim 5, Yana teaches a method of processing a workpiece (Paragraph [0001] method for processing a workpiece), comprising:
a covering step of covering a surface of the workpiece with a protective film (Paragraphs [0093-0099] Figure 5B a protective film (element 27) is formed on the surface of the workpiece (elements 21 and 23));
after the covering step, an irradiating step of irradiating the protective film along projected processing lines established on the workpiece with a pulsed laser beam having a wavelength absorbable by the protective film, thereby removing portions of the protective film along the projected processing lines to expose portions of the workpiece (Paragraphs [0103-0106] and [0121] a pulsed laser processes the workpiece to remove part of the protective film (element 27) to form grooves (element 33) that expose portions of the workpiece (element 11). Paragraphs [0124-0127] protective film has absorbance of laser wavelengths); and,
after the irradiating step, a plasma etching step of performing plasma etching on the exposed portions of the workpiece using the protective film as a mask (Paragraph [0123] after the laser grooves are formed a plasma etching process divides the workpiece while the protective film protects the surface of the workpiece);
wherein the protective film is formed from a protective film agent including a plasticizer and a water-soluble resin (Paragraph [0019] the protective film agent comprises a water-soluble. Paragraphs [0033-0035] the protective film agent can include additives that can include a plasticizer).
Yana fails to teach that the protective film has a hardness in a range from 0.0093 GPa to 0.13 GPa. Yanna teaches that the protective film can comprise polyvinylpyrrolidone (Paragraphs [0019-0020]).
Isojima teaches forming a resin layer over an electronic device (Paragraph [0009] resin layer is formed over a diode element). Isojima teaches that the resin layer can absorb light (Paragraph [0009] resin layer contains a light-absorbing agent) and can comprise and vinylpyrrolidone (Paragraphs [0071-0073] resin layer includes a polymerizable compound that can have vinylpyrrolidone). Isojima teaches that the resin layer can have a hardness of 100-600MPa (equivalent to 0.1-0.6 GPa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Yana such that the protective film had a hardness within the range taught by Isojima.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as it could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Yanna is silent on the hardness of the layer taught, while Isojima teaches a layer that can comprise the same polymer compound, is capable of absorbing light, and that the layer has a range of hardness. The combination would have had the predictable result of providing a hardness for that layer. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a hardness at a level within the disclosed range of 0.1-0.6 GPa, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.0093-0.13 GPa. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Yanna teaches that the protective film is formed from a protective film agent that includes a water-soluble resin and a plasticizer but fails to teach wherein a ratio of a mass of the plasticizer to a mass of the water-soluble resin being in a range from 15% to 53%.
Guo teaches a composition for a protective film for use in methods of cutting and separating semiconductor wafers (Paragraphs [0001-0003]). Guo teaches that the protective film has a composition comprising a water-soluble resin, a light absorber, and a solvent (Paragraph [0030]). Teaches that the composition can further include a plasticizer (Paragraph [0064]). Guo teaches that the composition can include the plasticizer at an amount equal to 20% to 75% by mass of the water-soluble resin (Paragraph [0065]). Guo teaches that the use of a plasticizer, as taught, within the composition can improve the ability of the protective layer to be washed away after process and suppress the carbonization of resin cause by the laser irradiation (Paragraph [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Yanna by using a protective film agent that included a mass ratio of plasticizer to water-soluble resin within the range taught by Guo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of a plasticizer within this range would improve the ability of the protective layer to be removed after processing and would also suppress the carbonization of the resin during the laser irradiation process step (Guo Paragraph [0065]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it can be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Yanna teaches a method that utilizes a protective film in a method of processing a workpiece, where the protective film can include a plasticizer and combination with Guo would provide a suitable range for the amount of plasticizer to include within the protective film forming agent. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Yanna teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as outlined above. Yanna further teaches wherein the protective film agent further includes a light absorbing agent and a solvent in which the water-soluble resin, the light absorbing agent, and the plasticizer are dissolved (Paragraph [0019] the protective film agent comprises a water-soluble resin and a light absorbing agent which are dissolved in an organic solvent. Paragraphs [0033-0035] the protective film agent can include additives that can include a plasticizer).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/A.K.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights