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 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 1-5 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.
Claims 1 and 4 both recite in the preamble of the claim that there is a formed “circular recess” and “annular land” in the wafer(s). However, the claims later in the body of the claim recite “a circular recess” and “an annular land” and it’s not clear if this is the same previously recited limitation, or a new recitation, and if so how it is differentiated. This is contrasted with “loading and unloading a wafer”, which is understood to represent the distinct wafers for the process.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected by virtue of their dependence.
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 1-2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (US 7278903) in view of Yamanaka (US 8657648) and Kodama (US 11817337).
Regarding claim 1;
Masuda discloses a processing apparatus (Figure 1) for grinding a central portion of a wafer to form a circular recess (see the “recessed shape”) in the wafer and an annular land (1b) surrounding the circular recess, the processing apparatus comprising: a turntable (33); at least four chuck tables (34) rotatably mounted on the turntable and having respective holding surfaces for holding respective wafers thereon; a delivery mechanism for loading a wafer onto and unloading a wafer from each of the chuck tables (66 moves the wafer from the supply to the chuck table(s)); a first processing mechanism (40B) for grinding the wafer held on one of the holding surfaces with a first annular grinding wheel to form a circular recess in a central portion of the wafer leaving an annular land around the circular recess to form a circular recess in a central portion of the wafer (the wafer 1 is processed to have a recessed shape), leaving an annular land (1b) around the circular recess; a second processing (40C) mechanism for grinding a bottom of the circular recess in the wafer held on the holding surface with a second annular grinding wheel (45); a first horizontally moving mechanism for moving the first annular grinding wheel of the first processing mechanism radially with respect to the wafer held on the one of the holding surfaces (rails at 42 allow for 40B to move laterally); a second horizontally moving mechanism for moving the second annular grinding wheel of the second processing mechanism radially with respect to the wafer held on the holding surface (57 allows for this radial movement).
Masuda fails to teach a third processing mechanism for grinding the bottom of the circular recess in the wafer held on the holding surface with a third annular grinding wheel or polishing an upper surface of the wafer with a first polishing pad; and a third horizontally moving mechanism for moving the third annular grinding wheel or the first polishing pad of the third processing mechanism radially with respect to the wafer held on the holding surface.
Masuda further discloses that the grinding wheels can be alternatively polishing pads (“…grinding device may be a grinding stone provided to a cup wheel or a powdered grinding stone included in a polishing buff in buffing”). Yamanaka teaches a processing apparatus that utilizes up to five chuck tables (Figure 2, 4a-4e) with four processing units (Figure 3) that can define up to three grinding means (7a-7c) and a polishing means (7d) with a polishing pad.
Kodama teaches the utilization of a processing apparatus with chuck tables (53) and rotary/turn tables (51) and a processing mechanism that has a rail mechanism allowing for lateral/horizontal movement (Figure 16, element 79 allows for Y-axis movement). Additionally, Kodama teaches an alternative embodiment with multiple processing mechanisms and respective horizontally moving mechanisms (see Figure 20 with multiple units utilized with the rotary table/chuck table combination).
Because Masuda discloses that the grinding wheels can be provided with polishing pads, and because Yamanaka teaches that large numbers of chuck table processing apparatus with at least three grinding apparatus and a fourth can further include a polishing mechanism, and it is known in the semiconductor wafer art that adding another round of grinding can allow for a reduced thickness and removing most of the subsurface damage while the polishing removes surface damage from the grinding of the wafer and eliminates contaminants and increases uniformity (double side polishing), it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing apparatus of Masuda such that the processing apparatus further comprising a polishing mechanism for polishing an upper surface of the wafer held on the chuck table in the delivery position with a second polishing pad as taught by Yamanaka for the purposes of removing surface damage, eliminating contaminants, and increasing overall uniformity of the wafer.
Because Masuda discloses the utilization of a turn table and chuck tables with a horizontally moving mechanism for some of the processing mechanisms, and because Kodama teaches that it is known to utilize a combination of horizontally moving mechanisms with multiple processing mechanisms within a processing apparatus for grinding a wafer, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing apparatus of Masuda such that a third horizontally moving mechanism for moving the third annular grinding wheel or the first polishing pad of the third processing mechanism radially with respect to the wafer held on the holding surface as taught by Kodama (with respect to the horizontal moving mechanism) and a third annular grinding wheel and/or first polishing pad of the third processing mechanism as taught by Yamanaka for the purposes of improving the precision of the wafer machining process and thereby improving overall yield of semiconductor chips.
Regarding claim 2, Masuda in view of Yamanaka and Kodama teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1 above. Masuda as modified by Yamanaka and Kodama further teaches the chuck tables are movable to and positionable in a processing position at the first processing mechanism, a processing position at the second mechanism, and a processing position at the third processing mechanism (the chuck tables are rotatable and move around the turn table, and are aligned with the respective processing mechanisms; see Figures of Masuda), and a delivery position into and from which each of the wafers is able to be loaded and unloaded by the delivery mechanism when the turntable is intermittently turned about its central axis (see the arrow R; “The chuck tables 34 are respectively positioned at four positions, that is, a rough grinding position, a semi finish grinding position, a finish grinding position, and a supply and collection position by a intermittent rotation of the turn table”). As a result of the combination of grinder and polishing of Yamanaka and Kodama, a polishing mechanism for grinding an upper surface of the wafer held on the chuck table in the delivery position with a second polishing pad is considered to be taught and established as prima facie obvious for the same reasons as under claim 1 (under alternative interpretation of claim 1, the third processing mechanism is the grinding of the bottom of the recess, and thereby the above combination which includes/defines a polishing pad would be the “second polishing pad” instead of the “first polishing pad”; additionally, Masuda utilizes the delivery adjacent unit 40C for the potential polishing).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (US 7278903) in view of Yamanaka (US 8657648) and Kodama (US 11817337), and further in view of Yoshida (US 7758402).
Masuda in view of Yamanaka and Kodama teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1 above. Masuda as modified by Yamanaka and Kodama further teaches the chuck tables are movable to and positionable in a processing position at the first processing mechanism, a processing position at the second mechanism, and a processing position at the third processing mechanism (the chuck tables are rotatable and move around the turn table, and are aligned with the respective processing mechanisms; see Figures of Masuda), and a delivery position into and from which each of the wafers is able to be loaded and unloaded by the delivery mechanism when the turntable is intermittently turned about its central axis (see the arrow R; “The chuck tables 34 are respectively positioned at four positions, that is, a rough grinding position, a semi finish grinding position, a finish grinding position, and a supply and collection position by a intermittent rotation of the turn table”).
Masuda fails to teach an outer circumferential upper surface grinding mechanism for grinding at least a portion, to be made into the annular land of an upper surface of the wafer held on the chuck table in the delivery position with an outer circumferential surface grinding wheel.
Yoshida teaches an outer circumferential upper surface grinding mechanism (Figure 8A-8B; reference 46b) for grinding at least a portion, to be made into the annular land of an upper surface of the wafer held on the chuck table in the delivery position with an outer circumferential surface grinding wheel (see in Figure 8A whereby the grinding wheel is positioned to land onto surface 5A which is the upper surface, and thereby forming part of the annular land 5A in Figure 8B). The grinder then continues downward and then circumferentially outward to fully form the recess and the annular land. Through the disclosed process to finish the wafer, despite the increase in steps and processes, the overall processing time is reduced and the yield of the semiconductor is increased.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing apparatus of Masuda such that an outer circumferential upper surface grinding mechanism for grinding at least a portion, to be made into the annular land of an upper surface of the wafer held on the chuck table in the delivery position with an outer circumferential surface grinding wheel as taught by Yoshida for the purposes of reducing the processing time and increasing the yield of the semiconductor.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (US 7278903) in view of Kodama (US 11817337).
Masuda discloses a processing apparatus (Figure 1) for grinding a central portion of a wafer to form a circular recess (see the “recessed shape”) in the wafer and an annular land (1b) surrounding the circular recess, the processing apparatus comprising: a turntable (33); at least four chuck tables (34) rotatably mounted on the turntable and having respective holding surfaces for holding respective wafers thereon; a delivery mechanism for loading a wafer onto and unloading a wafer from each of the chuck tables (66 moves the wafer from the supply to the chuck table(s)); a second processing mechanism (40B) for grinding the wafer held on one of the holding surfaces with a second annular grinding wheel (45) to form a circular recess in a central portion of the wafer (the wafer 1 is processed to have a recessed shape), leaving an annular land (1b) around the circular recess; a third processing (40C) mechanism for grinding a bottom of the circular recess in the wafer held on the holding surface with a third annular grinding wheel; a fourth processing mechanism (40A) for grinding at least a portion, to be made into the annular land, of an upper surface of the wafer held on the holding surface with a fourth annular grinding wheel (“performs rough grinding on the rear surface of the wafer 1”); a second horizontally moving mechanism for moving the second annular grinding wheel of the second processing mechanism radially with respect to the wafer held on the one of the holding surfaces (see guide rails 42 which moves 40B); a third horizontally moving mechanism (57) for moving the third annular grinding wheel of the third processing mechanism radially with respect to the wafer held on holding surface.
Masuda fails to teach a fourth horizontally moving mechanism for moving the fourth annular grinding wheel of the fourth processing mechanism radially with respect to the wafer held on the holding surface.
Kodama teaches the utilization of a processing apparatus with chuck tables (53) and rotary/turn tables (51) and a processing mechanism that has a rail mechanism allowing for lateral/horizontal movement (Figure 16, element 79 allows for Y-axis movement). Additionally, Kodama teaches an alternative embodiment with multiple processing mechanisms and respective horizontally moving mechanisms (see Figure 20 with multiple units utilized with the rotary table/chuck table combination).
Because Masuda discloses the utilization of a turn table and chuck tables with a horizontally moving mechanism for some of the processing mechanisms, and because Kodama teaches that it is known to utilize a combination of horizontally moving mechanisms with multiple processing mechanisms within a processing apparatus for grinding a wafer, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing apparatus of Masuda such that a fourth horizontally moving mechanism for moving the fourth annular grinding wheel of the fourth processing mechanism radially with respect to the wafer held on the holding surface as taught by Kodama for the purposes of improving the precision of the wafer machining process and thereby improving overall yield of semiconductor chips.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (US 7278903) in view of Kodama (US 11817337), and further in view of Yamanaka (US 8657648).
Masuda in view of Kodama teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 4 above. Masuda further discloses the chuck tables are movable to and positionable in a processing position at the second processing mechanism, a processing position at the third mechanism, and a processing position at the fourth processing mechanism (the chuck tables are rotatable and move around the turn table, and are aligned with the respective processing mechanisms), and a delivery position into and from which each of the wafers is able to be loaded and unloaded by the delivery mechanism when the turntable is intermittently turned about its central axis (see the arrow R; “The chuck tables 34 are respectively positioned at four positions, that is, a rough grinding position, a semi finish grinding position, a finish grinding position, and a supply and collection position by a intermittent rotation of the turn table”).
Masuda fails to teach the processing apparatus further comprising a polishing mechanism for polishing an upper surface of the wafer held on the chuck table in the delivery position with a second polishing pad.
Masuda further discloses that the grinding wheels can be alternatively polishing pads (“…grinding device may be a grinding stone provided to a cup wheel or a powdered grinding stone included in a polishing buff in buffing”). Yamanaka teaches a processing apparatus that utilizes up to five chuck tables (Figure 2, 4a-4e) with four processing units (Figure 3) that can define up to three grinding means (7a-7c) and a polishing means (7d) with a polishing pad.
Because Masuda discloses that the grinding wheels can be provided with polishing pads, and because Yamanaka teaches that large numbers of chuck table processing apparatus with at least three grinding apparatus can further include a polishing mechanism, and it is known in the semiconductor wafer art that polishing removes surface damage from the grinding of the wafer and eliminates contaminants and increases uniformity (double side polishing), it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing apparatus of Masuda such that the processing apparatus further comprising a polishing mechanism for polishing an upper surface of the wafer held on the chuck table in the delivery position with a second polishing pad as taught by Yamanaka for the purposes of removing surface damage, eliminating contaminants, and increasing overall uniformity of the wafer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745