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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1 and 3-7 are currently pending of which claims 6 and 7 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended and claim 2 has been cancelled.
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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al. (US 2005/0277270) and further in view of Abe et al. (US 4,610,079).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshikawa discloses an optical device wafer (0001) comprising a wafer (20) and a laminate (21) of a plurality of protective layers (insulating film and functional film) (0045). The laminate provided on a main surface of the wafer, arrayed separately, and a part on the main surface of the wafer is exposed (Fig. 10). While Yoshikawa teaches the side surface of the laminate having a tapered shape with a distance between adjacent protective layers of the plurality of increasing away from the main surface of the wafer (Fig. 10), Yoshikawa does not teach an entirety of the side surface of the protective layer tapering.
Ape, in the analogous field semiconductor wafers (column 1, lines 54-56), discloses forming a physical discontinuity on the surface of the wafer including where a coating layer is provided with an side surface which is entirely tapered (Fig. 8 ).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the protective layers of Yoshikawa to have an entirely tapered side surface, as taught by Ape, forming a surface where cracks and/or chips are restrained (column 3, lines 15-35).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshikawa teaches a recessed portion (25) which is recessed compared to a region overlapping the protective layers formed in a region not overlapping the protective layers in the wafer (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshikawa teaches the wafer comprising silicon and the insulating film of the laminate comprising silicon oxide (0045).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshikawa teaches using a cutting blade (521) to form the groove (25) (Fig. 14, 0070) given a disclosed thickness of the cutting blade of 20 µm, the distance between adjacent protective layers is longer than 10 µm e.g., equal to the thickness of the cutting blade. Prior art which teaches an example within the claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the new combination of prior art.
Correspondence
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 ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights