DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 11/07/2023. Claims 1-2 are currently pending.
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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 18-19, “measuring the height of the holding surface at same measurement points” should likely read “measuring the height of the holding surface at the same measurement points”.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 rotating mechanism” in claim 2. “mechanism” being the generic placeholder; “that rotates the chuck table about the center of the holding surface” being the functional language recited in the claim; the claim lacking sufficient structural modifying language.
The corresponding structure found in the instant specification being:
“a rotating mechanism 26 that is connected to a base end side of the chuck table base 29 via an endless belt 25” in pr. 15 and “The rotating mechanism 26 includes a motor and a driving pulley. The rotating mechanism 26 rotates the chuck table base 29 by revolving the endless belt 25. The chuck table 20 supported by the chuck table base 29 thereby rotates about a table rotational axis passing through the center of the holding surface 22. That is, the rotating mechanism 26 is configured to rotate the chuck table 20 about the center of the holding surface 22” in pr. 17 of the instant specification.
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 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 1-2 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.
Regarding Claim 1 lines 6-7, the limitation “a holding surface grinding step of grinding the holding surface by holding surface grinding stones” renders the claim indefinite. Earlier, claim 1 lines 2-4 recites “a holding surface of a grinding apparatus that grinds, by grinding stones, a wafer held on a holding surface of a chuck table”. This leads to the claim being indefinite since it is unclear if “the holding surface” stated in lines 6-7 is referencing to the “holding surface of a grinding apparatus” or the “holding surface of a chuck table”.
Claim 2 is also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) due to its dependency upon claim 1 rejected above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and/or rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1 and dependent claim 2, no prior art was found which anticipated or rendered obvious the invention as claimed. The claimed limitations relating to the “initial holding surface height measuring step”, the “interim holding surface height measuring step” and the “determining step” being key to differentiating the claimed invention from prior art found.
One of the closest prior art references found was JP6109010B2, herein referenced as Maejima. Maejima discloses a grinding apparatus with a chuck table having a holding surface which is formed generally conical and has an apex vertex, there is a height confirming means for confirming the height of the holding surface of the chuck table and stores detecting means for detecting heigh of the holding surface near the apex of the cone shape. An initial value of the height is stored, a comparison/determination unit determines whether or not a difference between the initial height and a detected height exceeds a predetermined amount, when the difference between the stored initial height and the detected height exceeds the predetermined amount, this indicates that the holding surface is greatly deformed due to the prolonged use of the foreign matter removal mechanism, self-grinding for adjusting the shape of the chuck table can occur to restore it to an appropriate shape. However, this reference fails to the first claimed set of “a holding surface grinding step of grinding the holding surface by holding surface grinding stones;” the initial holding surface height measuring step measuring the height of the holding surface “at a plurality of measurement points having different distances from a center of the holding surface”, the claimed “interim holding surface height measuring step of measuring the height of the holding surface at same measurement points as in the initial holding surface height measuring step after performing, a plurality of times after the storage step, the grinding of the wafer held on the holding surface and cleaning of the holding surface from which the wafer is separated” and “a determining step of obtaining, at each of the measurement points, a difference between the initial holding surface height data stored in the storage step and interim holding surface height data” as required by the instant claim. Modifying Maejima to have the missing features or modifying other references with the teaching of Maejima to be the claimed invention was determined to be non-obvious given that the singular height value/reference was due to the conical shape of the holding surface with an apex, this being the only shape discussed by Maejima. Maejima is also directed to ensuring that a foreign matter removing mechanism is not used to such an extent that the holding surface becomes greatly deformed, while the instant invention claims that between the initial height measurement and the interim height measurement, a plurality of times of grinding a wafer held on the holding surface and cleaning the holding surface from which the wafer is separated occurs; this would have a different effect on the resulting change in shape of the holding surface.
Another closest prior art reference found was JP2020049557A, herein referenced as Chishima. Chishima relates to monitoring a variation of width of the measured value of the height of a holding surface to detect irregularities thereon, where a holding surface height is compared against an upper limit value of the height and a lower limit value of the height which are set in advance; the limit values can together can define a preset allowable value. Also, the fluctuation/variation width of the height of the holding surface can be compared with a preset allowable value for the variable width to determine irregularities on the holding surface. While Chishima does present a plurality of measurement points, they are not stated as having different distance from a center of the holding surface; but are rather at different circumferential positions. Chishima also fails to discloses an initial height measurement and an interim height measurement, and “a determining step of obtaining, at each of the measurement points, a difference between the initial holding surface height data stored in the storage step and interim holding surface height data as data on the height of the holding surface, the height being measured in the interim holding surface height measuring step, and determining, when the difference is equal to or less than an allowable value set in advance, that the holding surface is normal or determining, when the difference exceeds the allowable value, that the holding surface is abnormal” as required by the claim. Given that Chishima is more related to height variations of the holding surface, it would not have been obvious to modify Chishima to also comprise these missing aspects.
One other closest prior art reference found was JP2022041489A, herein referenced as Kikawa. Kikawa disclosed of a grinding apparatus and a method of detecting an abnormality of the holding surface. The detected abnormality of the holding surface is either a convex portion of the holding surface or a concave portion of the holding surface, where the convex portion could be deposits attached to the holding surface and where the concavity or recess can be formed by the grinding wheel damaging the holding surface. A determination unit obtains a height distribution of the holding surface from data stored in the storage unit which includes the value of the scale 114 (height of the holding surface), where radial position of the probe and a rotation angle of the holding surface. An abnormality is determined when the holding surface has a predetermined number of recesses or recesses having a predetermined area or more. This would represent a plurality of measurement points having different distances from a center of the holding surface, with even a spiral pattern disclosed in fig. 4. However, Kitagawa fails to disclose of an initial holding surface measuring step and an interim holding surface measuring step as claimed, cleaning of the holding surface from which a wafer is separated before an interim holding surface measuring step; and “a determining step of obtaining, at each of the measurement points, a difference between the initial holding surface height data stored in the storage step and interim holding surface height data as data on the height of the holding surface, the height being measured in the interim holding surface height measuring step, and determining, when the difference is equal to or less than an allowable value set in advance, that the holding surface is normal or determining, when the difference exceeds the allowable value, that the holding surface is abnormal” as required by the claim. Given that Kikawa is directed to only identifying convex and concave portions of the holding surface, no motivation was found to modify Kikawa to comprise the missing aspects mentioned above.
For the reasons listed above, the claimed invention is deemed to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP2020179478A talks about providing marks on the chuck table so that there is visual confirmation of the amount removed during grinding from self-grinding and provides a means for determining if the chuck table has been self-grinding.
JP2022020281A – talks about determining the replacement time of a chuck table based upon a usable limit height of the chuck table being reached, relates to replacement of the chuck table instead of self-grinding or refinishing as discussed by the instant invention.
JP2021053716A and JP4916833 – disclose of self-grinding of a holding surface of a grinding apparatus, self-grinding being done periodically and is done to reform the shape of the holding surface (e.g., flatten it).
JP6489961B2 – discloses a foreign matter removing means for the holding surface of a grinding apparatus which removes foreign materials attached to the holding surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights