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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections of Claims 15 – 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action filed 18 March 2026, Applicant’s amendments in the previous reply filed 18 June 2026 are found sufficient to overcome the associated rejections. Accordingly, said rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the previous Office Action filed 18 March 2026, on pages 7 – 10 of the previous reply filed 18 June 2026, Applicant traverses. Applicant’s arguments in this regard have been considered but are moot in light of the change in scope of the Examiner’s interpretation of the prior art of record necessitated by the change in scope of the claims necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Specifically, the primary reference is now KAWASAKI instead of AMANO, and AMANO is no longer referenced.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner’s Note
For the prior art rejection to follow, consult the most recent accompanying machine translation of KAWASAKI attached to form PTO-892.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6 – 8, 11 – 12, and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KAWASAKI (JP 2016111229 A).
Regarding Claim 1,
KAWASAKI discloses:
A semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of clamping portions (33/53 pairs; Par. 17)
positioned around an outer circumferential position of a wafer (WF) and
configured to pull (Par. 13 – 15) a sheet (AS), to which the wafer (WF) is mounted (Par. 13), outwardly from a central portion of the wafer (WF),
(As seen in Fig. 2A – 2B)
each clamping portion (33/53 pair) including
a first rotating body (33) paired with a second body (53) for clamping (Par. 13 – 15) the sheet (AS); and
a control unit (34; Par. 15)
configured to control the rotation of each first rotating body (33) of the plurality of clamping portions (33/53 pairs) to pull the sheet (AS) outwardly,
(Par. 15)
wherein a rotational axis (coaxial with 34A) of each first rotating body (33) is perpendicular to a radial line extending from a center position of the wafer (WF) to a center point of the first rotating body (33).
(As seen in Fig. 2A)
Regarding Claim 2,
KAWASAKI discloses:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the clamping portions (33/53 pairs) are disposed concentrically with respect to the wafer (WF).
(As seen in Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 6,
KAWASAKI discloses:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a first group of clamping portions (any given diametrically opposing pair of 33/53 pairs) have
first rotating bodies (33s) that pull (Par. 13 – 15) the sheet (AS) along a first direction (colinear with the given diametrically opposing pair) parallel to a surface of the wafer (WF), and
a second group of clamping portions (any other given diametrically opposing pair of 33/53 pairs) have
first rotating bodies (33s) that pull (Par. 13 – 15) the sheet (AS) a second direction (colinear with the other given diametrically opposing pair) parallel to the surface of the wafer (WF) and different from the first direction.
Regarding Claim 7,
KAWASAKI discloses:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the control unit (34)
controls the rotation (Par. 15 & 19) of the first rotating body (33) for each clamping portion (33/53 pair) so that a load on the plurality of clamping portions (33/53 pairs) is uniform.
The requirements of this claim concern the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art, as the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of this claim. See MPEP 2144(II); Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 8,
KAWASAKI discloses:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the control unit (34)
controls the rotation (Par. 15 & 15) of the first rotating body (33) for each clamping portion (33/53 pair) according to a shape of chips (CP) formed on the wafer (WF).
The requirements of this claim concern the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art, as the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of this claim. See MPEP 2144(II); Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 11,
KAWASAKI discloses:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a load detection unit (60; Par. 13)
(Note, Par. 13 – 15 teach 60 measures the distance between the chips CP of the wafer WF, as the apparatus expands the sheet AS to which the wafer WF is mounted. As such, the distance measured is correlated to the tension of the sheet AS, which is applied by 34 driving the rotation of individual 33s. In this way, it may be construed under a broadest reasonable interpretation that 60 is an—indirect—load detection unit that—indirectly—detects a load of the first rotating bodies 33.)
to detect a load of a first rotating body (as described) of one of the plurality of clamping portions (33/53 pairs), wherein
the control unit (34) controls the rotation of the first rotating body (33) of the one of the plurality of clamping portion (33/53 pairs) based on a detection result from the load detection unit (Par. 15).
Regarding Claim 12,
KAWASAKI discloses:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a chip interval detection unit (60; Par. 13)
to detect an interval (Par. 13) between chips (CP) formed from the wafer (WF),
wherein the control unit (34) controls the rotation of the first rotating bodies (33) based on a detection result (Par. 15) from the chip interval detection unit (60).
Regarding Claim 17,
KAWASAKI discloses:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the second body (53) is a rotating body (Par. 17).
Regarding Claim 18,
KAWASAKI discloses:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the control unit (34) controls each of the plurality of clamping portions (33s of 33/53 pairs; Par. 15 & 19) by feedback control.
The requirements of this claim concern the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art, as the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of this claim. See MPEP 2144(II); Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
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 15 – 16 are rejected as being unpatentable over KAWASAKI.
Regarding Claim 15,
KAWASAKI does not disclose:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the first rotating bodies (33) are a different material than the second bodies (53).
Regardless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of KAWASAKI such that the first rotating bodies are a different material than the second bodies in KAWASAKI, as KAWASAKI identifies “metal, resin, or the like” (Par. 25) as suitable materials for the first rotating bodies and the second bodies. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would have selected different ones of the known suitable materials for the first rotating bodies and the second bodies, respectively. Accordingly, selection of such different known materials based on their suitability for their intended purpose would have been obvious, consistent with In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 16,
KAWASAKI does not disclose:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein, in at least one clamping portion (33/53 pair), a shape or size of the first rotating (33) body is different from a shape or size of the second body (53).
Regardless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of KAWASAKI such that, in at least one clamping portion, a shape or size of the first rotating body is different from a shape or size of the second body in KAWASAKI, as the only claimed difference between the invention of KAWASAKI and Applicant’s invention is the recitation of the relative dimensions of the first rotating body and the second body. Further, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the device of KAWASAKI. Accordingly, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from that of the prior art, consistent with Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claims 9 – 10 are rejected as being unpatentable over KAWASAKI in view of ZHAO (US 20210028063 A1).
Regarding Claim 9,
KAWASAKI does not disclose:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a heating unit
configured to heat portions of the sheet beyond the outer circumference of the wafer while the first rotating bodies are being rotated to pull the sheet outwardly from the central portion of the wafer.
ZHAO discloses:
a heating unit (Fig. 14: 382; Par. 62 – 63)
configured to heat (Par. 83 – 86) portions (Fig. 14: 3-5) of the sheet (Fig. 14: 3) beyond the outer circumference (Fig. 14: corresponding to 102) of the wafer (Fig. 14: 2)
while the first rotating bodies (Fig. 14: 374) are being rotated to pull the sheet (3) outwardly from the central portion of the wafer (2).
The requirements of this claim concern the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed—specifically, heating “while the first rotating bodies are being rotated” rather than after, as taught by ZHAO Par. 83—and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art, as the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of this claim. See MPEP 2144(II); Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KAWASAKI with those of ZHAO such that the heating unit of ZHAO was incorporated into the apparatus of KAWASAKI to enable a heating unit configured to heat portions of the sheet beyond the outer circumference of the wafer while the first rotating bodies are being rotated to pull the sheet outwardly from the central portion of the wafer in KAWASAKI according to the teachings of ZHAO, as ZHAO teaches the implementation of such a heating unit to heat and, thus, shrink the portions of the sheet beyond the outer circumference of the wafer that have been expanded plays a major role in preventing damage to the separated chips of the wafer (ZHAO Par. 4 – 6). Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such a combination because these inventions are from the same field of endeavor, have substantially similar purposes, and employ similar methods and materials. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine KAWASAKI and ZHAO to achieve the claimed invention and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 10,
KAWASAKI does not disclose:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 9,
wherein the heating unit is rotatable about an axis that passes through substantially the center portion of the wafer (WF).
ZHAO discloses:
wherein the heating unit (Fig. 5: 382; Par. 62 – 63) is rotatable about an axis (Fig. 5: Z) that passes through substantially the center portion of the wafer (Fig. 5 & 15: the radial center of 2; Par. 32).
Claim 13 is rejected as being unpatentable over KAWASAKI in view of YOUNG “Laser Sensors for Displacement, Distance and Position”, 2019.
Regarding Claim 13,
KAWASAKI does not disclose:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 12,
wherein the chip interval detection unit (60) is a laser scanning unit.
(Par. 13 teaches 60 may be an “optical sensor or imaging means” but does not disclose what type of optical sensor or imaging means 60 may be.)
YOUNG discloses:
an interval detection unit is a laser scanning unit (Abstract & Contributions).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KAWASAKI with those of YOUNG such that the “optical sensor” of KAWASAKI are substituted with the “laser sensor” of YOUNG to enable the chip interval detection unit to be a laser scanning unit in KAWASAKI according to the teachings of YOUNG, as KAWASAKI and YOUNG teach these elements perform the same function of measuring relative positions (i.e. intervals), respectively (KAWASAKI Par. 13; YOUNG Abstract & Contributions). Therefore, these elements and their functions were known in the art, the results of their substitution would have been predictable, and one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the “laser sensor” of YOUNG for the “optical sensor” of KAWASAKI with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, such a modification constitutes the simple substitution of a known element for another known element to obtain predictable results, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim 14 is rejected as being unpatentable over KAWASAKI in view of TOMA (US 20090146786 A1).
Regarding Claim 14,
KAWASAKI does not disclose:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 12,
wherein the chip interval detection unit (60) is a camera.
(Par. 13 teaches 60 may be an “optical sensor or imaging means” but does not disclose what type of optical sensor or imaging means 60 may be.)
TOMA discloses:
wherein the chip interval detection unit (Fig. 1: 9 of 5) is a camera (Par. 19).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KAWASAKI with those of TOMA such that the “optical sensor or imaging means” of KAWASAKI comprise the “camera” of TOMA to enable the chip interval detection unit to be a camera in KAWASAKI according to the teachings of TOMA, as TOMA and KAWASAKI teach the “camera” and “optical sensor or imaging means” are suitable for performing the same function of detecting the chip interval, respectively (KAWASAKI Par. 13; TOMA Par. 19). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have selected the “camera” of TOMA for the “optical sensor or imaging means” of KAWASAKI based on its suitability for its intended use with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, selection of such a known component based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious, consistent with Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 5 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:
The closest prior art to the present invention is KAWASAKI (JP 2016111229 A).
KAWASAKI discloses:
A separation device 10 for extending mutual intervals of a plurality of piece-shape bodies CP formed from a plate-shape member WF by applying tensile force to an adhesion sheet AS on which the plate-shape member WF is stuck comprises: holding means 20 for holding a holding part AS2 on the outer side of the adhesion sheet AS's sticking area AS1 on which the plate-shape member WF is stuck; contact means 30 that contacts with a surface on the side opposite to an adhesion surface of the adhesion sheet AS and includes a rotor 33 at an edge part 32A; and tensile force application means 40 for applying tensile force to the adhesion sheet AS by relatively moving the holding means 20 and the contact means 30 before bending, using the rotor 33, the adhesion sheet AS at a position between the sticking area AS1 and the holding part AS2. The contact means 30 includes drive means 34 for driving the rotor 33.
Regarding Claims 3 – 5,
There is no teaching or prior art to provide:
The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the clamping portions are at different distances from the central portion of the wafer; or
clamping portions adjacent to each other are at different distances from the central portion of the wafer; or
clamping portions adjacent to each other are at different distances from the central portion of the wafer, and the adjacent clamping portions overlap each other when viewed radially from the central portion of the wafer.
Missing elements in the closest art gives rise to the innovation in the current invention.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment
of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such
submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 Kenneth S. Stephenson whose telephone number is (571)272-6686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. (EST)..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/K.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights