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 .
Drawings
The prior drawing objections are withdrawn in view of the replacement drawing sheets received on 11 May 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior §112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Double Patenting
The prior double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues, with respect to limitations of original claim 3, that Tabuchi does not disclose a cut-in depth of the cutting blade because cited portion, Tabuchi – para. 14: sent. 2, merely recites a figure description, “FIG. 1B is a schematic sectional view of the wafer shown in FIG. 1A”. Examiner disagrees because cited portion, Tabuchi – para. 14: sent. 2, describes a cutting blade cutting fully through a passivation mask layer, as well as a cut-in depth of the cutting blade.
Additional arguments of the applicant have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (US 9018079 B1; hereinafter referred to as “Lei”) in view of Tabuchi (JP 2018006588 A; hereinafter referred to as “Tabuchi”) and Takahashi (US PGPub 20050140006 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Takahashi”)
Re claim 1: Lei teaches a manufacturing method of a plurality of chips (abstract), the method manufacturing the chips by dividing a workpiece (FIG. 3: el. 300) that is defined into a plurality of regions (FIG. 3: el. 302) by scribe lines (FIG. 3: el. 304, 306), comprising: a mask forming step of forming a mask (FIG. 6A: el. 602) by supplying a plasmatic deposition gas to a front surface or a back surface of the workpiece (col. 9: line 29-35; FIG. 6A: el. 602, 604|the plasma deposition process of Lei inherently includes supplying the plasma/gas to a front or back surface of the workpiece); a cutting step of forming cut grooves (FIG. 6B: el. 610, 612; col. 10: line 33-44; FIG 12B: el. 1214; col. 16: line 40), with the mask being removed along the scribe lines (col. 10: line 33-39: FIG. 6A-B: el. 607); and a plasma etching step of removing the workpiece along the scribe lines to divide the workpiece into the chips (FIG. 5: el. 508; col. 4: line 31-34) by applying plasma etching to the workpiece while supplying a plasmatic etching gas (col. 15: line 21-27) to the front surface or the back surface of the workpiece in which the cut grooves have been formed (FIG. 6B-C: el. 610, 612; FIG 12B-C: el. 1214, 1216|figures show etching through the cut trenches to divide the workpiece). Lei fails to teach forming cut grooves by causing a cutting blade having a V-shaped tip end portion to cut into the workpiece along the scribe lines on the front surface or the back surface on which the mask has been formed, at a predetermined cut-in depth from a surface of the mask, the predetermined cut-in depth being greater than or equal to a thickness of the mask and less than 10 µm. However, Lei does teach a variant process of forming cut grooves by causing a laser beam to cut into the workpiece at a predetermined cut-in depth (FIG. 5: el. 504; FIG. 11B; col. 10: line 33-44).
In a similar field of endeavor, Tabuchi teaches a cutting step of forming cut grooves (FIG. 2: el. 10b), with the mask (FIG. 2: el. 16; para. 14: sent. 2; para. 12: sent. 2; para. 7: last 2 lines| mask formed from plasma CVD deposited passivation layer) being removed along the scribe lines (FIG. 2: el. 12), by causing a cutting blade (FIG. 2: el. 22) to cut into the workpiece (FIG. 2: el. 10) along the scribe lines on the front surface or the back surface on which the mask has been formed (FIG. 2: el. 16, 10b), at a predetermined cut-in depth from a surface of the mask (para. 14: sent. 2), the predetermined cut-in depth being greater than or equal to a thickness of the mask and less than 10 µm (para. 14: sent. 2| Tabuchi specifically discloses that the predetermined cut-in depth is at least the thickness of the passivation layer mask 16; Tabuchi discloses that the predetermined cut-in depth is greater than or equal to 5 µm, and as per MPEP 2144.05(i), "in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”).
It would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tabuchi and Lei to enable performing the step of cutting with a cutting blade of Tabuchi in the dicing method of Lei to make use of existing, well-known dicing tools and because the selection of a known process based on its suitability for its intended use is supported by prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.07).
The combination of Lei and Tabuchi fails to disclose a cutting blade having a V-shaped tip end portion.
In a similar field of endeavor, Takahashi teaches a cutting blade having a V-shaped tip end portion (FIG. 8: el. 9; para. 49) for the benefit of preventing chipping of the edges of the diced chips (abstract). Takahashi teaches a cutting step of forming cut grooves (para. 49; FIG. 8, 9: el. 2m) by causing a cutting blade having a V-shaped tip end portion (FIG. 8: el. 9; para. 49) to cut into the workpiece (para 49; FIG. 8), followed by wafer dicing along the cut groove (FIG. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Lei and Tabuchi with the teachings of Takahashi, to enable using the cutting blade having a V-shaped tip end portion of Takahashi in the manufacturing method of the combination of Lei and Tabuchi, for the benefit of preventing chipping of the edges of the diced chips.
Re claim 2: The combination of Lei, Tabuchi, and Takahashi teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein in the cutting step, the cutting blade is caused to cut into the mask such that only the tip end portion comes into contact with the mask (Takahashi – FIG. 8: el. 9; para. 49| only the V-shaped tip end is caused to cut into the workpiece including the passivation protective layer 2g, so that the cut groove has the chamfer shape).
Re claim 4: The combination of Lei, Tabuchi, and Takahashi teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein in the plasma etching step, the workpiece is divided into the chips along the scribe lines by repeating (Lei - col. 15: line 28-34|sub-operations of the Bosch etch are repeated): a protective film application substep of applying a protective film (Lei - col. 15: line 40-44) to the cut grooves (Lei - col. 4: line 52-54|the plasma etch operation of Lei extends the cut trenches via plasma etching. To perform this operation, the etching steps are inherently performed on the cut trenches) by supplying a plasmatic deposition gas (Lei - col. 15: line 29-33, 41-43|a conventional Bosch process, as taught by Lei, utilizes plasma deposition for deposition of the protective film of the deposition sub-step) to the side of the surface of the workpiece in which the cut grooves have been formed (Lei - col. 4: line 52-54; FIG. 6B-6C). an anisotropic etching substep of, after the protective film application substep, removing portions of the protective film covering corresponding bottoms of the cut grooves (Lei - col. 15: line 41 46), through anisotropic plasma etching of the protective film by supplying a plasmatic gas for anisotropic etching to the cut grooves (Lei - col. 15: line 29-33, 44-47|a conventional Bosch process, as taught by Lei, utilizes a dry plasma etch for the anisotropic etch sub-step); and an isotropic etching substep of, after the anisotropic etching substep (Lei - col. 15: line 31 33), subjecting the bottoms of the cut grooves (Lei - col. 15: line 41-46) to isotropic plasma etching by supplying a plasmatic gas for isotropic etching to the cut grooves (Lei - col. 15: line 29-33|a conventional Bosch process, as taught by Lei, utilizes a dry plasma etch for the isotropic etch sub-step).
Re claim 5: The combination of Lei, Tabuchi, and Takahashi teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, further comprising: a mask removal step of removing the mask after the plasma etching step (Lei - FIG. 6B-6C: el. 608; col. 15: line 25-27|figures show the remove of patterned mask 608).
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 DEVIN GOODLING whose telephone number is (571)272-2552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, 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.
/D.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights