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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Fig. 3) in the reply filed on 10/01/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (2014/0106647 A1), hereinafter Kang, in view of Hwan (KR 20160070369 A). Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising: a table 12 having a first surface on which a processing target object (W) is placed and being rotatable about a first rotational axis in a first direction substantially orthogonal to the first surface; a shaft 17 rotatably and movably holding a blade 40 that machines the processing target object (W); a sensor 13 configured to measure a thickness of the processing target object in a region to be machined by the blade; and a first control unit (defined as a control system for controlling both up and down movement of the shaft 17 and also rotation of the shaft 17) to control rotation and movement of the shaft and control movement of the blade in the first direction based on a result of the measurement by the sensor 13. See Figs. 1-5 in Kang.
Kang, however, does not teach or suggest that the blade 40 is rotatable about a second rotational axis which is substantially orthogonal to the first rotational axis of the table 12. Hwan teaches a substrate processing apparatus including a table 110 having a first surface on which a substrate (S) is placed and being rotatable about a first rotational axis by a rotating means 111, and a spindle 121 rotatably holding a polishing wheel 120 for machining the substrate. Hwan further teaches that the rotation axis of the spindle 121 is horizontally positioned (i.e., parallel to the substrate surface), while the table rotates about an axis orthogonal to the substrate surface, thereby establishing that the rotation axis of the polishing wheel 120 is substantially orthogonal to the rotation axis of the table 110. See, e.g., Fig. 2 and corresponding description in Hwan. Although Hwan discloses a polishing wheel rather than a blade, the polishing wheel constitutes a material removal tool functionally similar to the blade of Kang, as both are configured to machine a substrate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Kang to orient the rotational axis of the blade 40 (via shaft 17) substantially orthogonal to the rotational axis of the table 12, as taught by Hwan, in order to improve machining efficiency and achieve more uniform tool wear by utilizing a greater portion of the tool circumference during processing.
Regarding claim 15, Kang teaches everything noted above including that the region to be machined by the blade is an outer peripheral end part of the processing target object when viewed in the first direction.
4. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Hwan and in further view of Michelt et al. (2014/0368830 A1), hereinafter Michelt. Regarding claim 14, Kang does not explicitly teach that the sensor is an optical sensor or an ultrasonic sensor. However, Michlet teaches a cutting apparatus including a sensor 26 for mearing a thickness of an object 12. Michlet also teaches that the sensor is an optical sensor. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the measuring mechanism of Kang’s apparatus, as modified by Hwan, with the optical sensor, as taught by Michelt, in order to precisely measure the thickness of the object.
5. Claims 2-4 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Hwan and in further view of Isei et al. (2004/0263868 A1), hereinafter Isei. Regarding claim 2, Kang teaches everything noted above including that the first control unit moves downward the blade, in the first direction while rotating the blade during stop of rotation of the table, and the first control unit stops the downward movement of the blade when the result of the measurement by the sensor is equal to or smaller than a first predetermined thickness. Kang does not explicitly teach that the blade is positioned directly above the sensor. However, Isei teaches a sensor 15 which is positioned with a rotatable table 2 which supports a substrate 7. Isel also teaches that the sensor 15 also is directly above the blade (or polishing surface of the polishing surface plate 4). See Fig. 1 in Isei. By positioning Kang’s sensor within the substrate support plate as taught by Isei, the sensor in Kang would be located beneath the working surface of the table. Accordingly, as the blade 40 of Kang rotates above the working support surface during machining, it passes directly above the sensor located within the support surface. Thus, Kang, in view of Isei, teaches the claimed configuration of the blade being directly above the sensor. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kang’s apparatus, as modified by Hwan, to locate the sensor within the substrate support plate, as taught by Isei, because both arrangements of the sensor produce the same functional result, enabling measurement of substrate thickness beneath the blade, and are therefore art-recognized equivalents.
Regarding claim 3, Kang teaches everything noted above including a second control unit configured to control rotation of the table 12, wherein the second control unit starts rotation of the table when the result of the measurement by the sensor is equal to or smaller than the first predetermined thickness.
Regarding claim 4, Kang teaches everything noted above including that the number of the sensors corresponds to the number of the blades.
Regarding claim 8, Kang in view of Isei, teaches everything noted above including that the sensor (15; Fig. 1 in Isei) is provided inside the table 2, and the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus further includes a structural body 17 provided to penetrate through the table 2 and supporting the sensor 15. See Figs. 1-6 in Isei.
Regarding claim 9, Kang in view of Isei, teaches everything noted above including that the sensor 15 (Fig. 1 in Isei) is provided inside the table 2, and the table includes a first recessed part (23; Fig. 5 in Isei) defined provided at the first surface such that the sensor 15 is separated (by the holder 17) from the table that is rotating. See Figs. 1-6 in Isei.
Regarding claim 10, Kang in view of Isei, teaches everything noted above including a rotation body 18 contacts a surface in the first recessed part and is rotatable in accordance with rotation of the table, wherein the rotation body supports the sensor 15. See Figs. 1-6 in Isei.
Regarding claim 11, Kang in view of Isei, teaches everything noted above except that (in an alternative embodiment) the table further includes a rail provided on the surface in the first recessed part and contacting the rotation body. However, Official Notice is taken that the sue of a rail to support a sensor or sensor holder in a table is old and well known in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Kang in view of Isei, teaches everything noted above except that (in an alternative embodiment) a wireless transmitting unit configured to wirelessly transmit the result of the measurement by the sensor; and a wireless receiving unit configured to wirelessly receive the result of the measurement by the sensor from the wireless transmitting unit. However, Official Notice is taken that the use of a wireless transmitting unit with a sensor is old and well known in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Kang in view of Isei, teaches everything noted above including that the sensor 16 is fixed in a second recessed part 22 provided at the first surface. See Figs. 1-6 in Isei.
Regarding claim 14, Kang in view of Isei teaches everything noted above including that the sensor (15; Fig. 1 in Isei) is an optical sensor or an ultrasonic.
6. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Hwan and Isei or Boyd (7,048,608 B2). Regarding claim 5, Kang teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus including a table 12 having a first surface on which a processing target object (W) is placed and being rotatable about a first rotational axis in a first direction substantially orthogonal to the first surface, and a shaft 17 rotatably and movably holding a blade 40 that machines the processing target object. Kang further teaches a first control unit configured to move the blade downward in the first direction while rotating, and to stop the downward movement when the measured thickness from a sensor 13 reaches a predetermined value (see Kang, Figs. 1-5). Hwan teaches that the rotation axis of a spindle 121 holding a polishing wheel 120 can be oriented substantially orthogonal to the rotation axis of the table 110, thereby addressing the orientation limitation of claim 5 (see Hwan, Fig. 2). While Kang does not explicitly teach resuming downward movement of the blade when the measured thickness subsequently increases, Isei teaches a sensor 15 positioned within a substrate support plate beneath a blade, and controlling tool movement based on measured substrate thickness (see Isei, Fig. 1). Similarly, Boyd teaches dynamically adjusting the vertical position of a grinding wheel based on feedback from a sensor measuring wafer topography (see Boyd, Fig. 2-3). By positioning Kang’s sensor within the substrate support plate as taught by Isei or using a control strategy as in Boyd, the blade 40 in Kang would pass directly above the sensor during rotation, and the first control unit would move the blade downward when the measured thickness increases by more than a predetermined amount, as claimed. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kang’s control system to resume downward movement of the blade in response to an increase in measured thickness, as taught by Isei or Boyd, because such dynamic adjustment of a machining tool based on thickness measurements is a routine and predictable modification in the field of semiconductor substrate machining.
Regarding claim 6, Kang in view of Isei teaches everything noted above including that the sensor is constantly positioned directly below the blade during rotation of the table.
Regarding claim 7, Kang teaches everything noted above including that the sensor rotates together with the table and measures the thickness of the processing target object at a timing when the blade is positioned directly above the sensor.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant contends that Knag does not teach the blade being rotatable above a second rotations axis orthogonal to the first rotation axis. However, this argument is moot in view of Hwan. As discussed above, Hwan teaches a substrate processing apparatus including a table 110 having a first surface on which a substrate (S) is placed and being rotatable about a first rotational axis by a rotating means 111, and a spindle 121 rotatably holding a polishing wheel 120 for machining the substrate. Hwan further teaches that the rotation axis of the spindle 121 is horizontally positioned (i.e., parallel to the substrate surface), while the table rotates about an axis orthogonal to the substrate surface, thereby establishing that the rotation axis of the polishing wheel 120 is substantially orthogonal to the rotation axis of the table 110. See, e.g., Fig. 2 and corresponding description in Hwan.
Applicant further argues that Kang, in view of Isei, does not teach that the blade is positioned directly above the sensor. As discussed above, Isei teaches a sensor 15 positioned within the substrate support plate of a rotatable table 2 supporting a substrate 7, with the sensor directly below the polishing surface of a blade or polishing plate 4 (see Fig. 1 of Isei). By positioning Kang’s sensor within the substrate support plate as taught by Isei, the sensor in Kang would be located beneath the working surface of the table. Accordingly, as the blade 40 of Kang rotates above the working support surface during machining, it passes directly above the sensor located within the support surface. Thus, Kang, in view of Isei, teaches the claimed configuration of the blade being directly above the sensor.
Finally, Applicant argues that Kang, in view of Isei, does not explicitly teach the claimed subject matter of claim 5. As discussed above, Kang teaches the apparatus of claim 2, including moving the blade downward while rotating, and stopping the downward movement when the measured thickness reaches a predetermined value. While Kang does not explicitly teach resuming downward movement if the measured thickness subsequently increases, Isei teaches a sensor 15 positioned within a substrate support plate beneath a blade, and controlling tool movement based on measured substrate thickness (see Isei, Fig. 1). Similarly, Boyd teaches dynamically adjusting the vertical position of a grinding wheel based on feedback from a sensor measuring wafer topography (see Boyd, Figs. 2-3). By positioning Kang’s sensor within the substrate support plate as taught by Isei, the blade 40 would pass directly above the sensor, and the first control unit could move the blade downward when the measured thickness increases beyond a predetermined threshold, as claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such dynamic adjustment of the blade based on sensor feedback was routine and predictable in substrate machining, and would have been motivated to implement it to maintain uniform material removal and reduce uneven wear. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
March 31, 2026