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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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 4-5 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.
Claim 4 recites:
"wherein, in the second grinding step, the bottom surface of the first circular recess is ground by a grinding amount of not less than such a grinding amount that a grinding damage generated in the first grinding step is removable, after the bottom surface of the first circular recess is ground into the shape of being concentrical and differing in thickness in the radial direction in the first grinding step."
It is unclear what is meant with "the bottom surface of the first circular recess is ground by a grinding amount of not less than such a grinding amount that a grinding damage generated in the first grinding step is removable". There appears to be some language issue. As best understood, this recitation appears to require that the second grinding step grinds enough material to at least remove grinding damage generated in the first step, as discussed in applicant’s paragraph [0040].
Claim 5, recites:
"wherein, in the first grinding step, the bottom surface of the first circular recess is formed into a shape of differing in thickness by an amount corresponding to such a grinding amount that the grinding damage generated in the first grinding step is removable by grinding in the second grinding step."
It is unclear what is meant with " the first circular recess is formed into a shape of differing in thickness by an amount corresponding to such a grinding amount that the grinding damage generated in the first grinding step is removable by grinding ". There appears to be some language issue. As best understood, this is recitation appears to be requiring that a grinding amount done by the first grinding step leaves some bottom surface thickness that allows the grinding damage generated in the first step to be removable by the second grinding step, as discussed in applicant’s paragraph [0040].
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2021/0291316) in view of Schneegans et al. (US 6752694), hereinafter ‘Schneegans’
Suzuki discloses:
1. A workpiece grinding method for grinding a back surface of a workpiece formed on a front surface thereof with a device region and a peripheral surplus region surrounding the device region, to form a circular recess and an annular projecting part surrounding the circular recess (paragraph [0001]), the workpiece grinding method comprising:
a holding step of holding the workpiece on a holding surface of a chuck table (chuck table 6, paragraph [0031], S20 “HOLDING STEP”);
a first grinding step of grinding a part of the back surface corresponding to the device region of the workpiece held by the chuck table, by use of a first grinding wheel to form a first circular recess and an annular projecting part in the back surface of the workpiece (S30 “OBLIQUE GRINDING STEP” is interpreted to be a first grinding step, discussed in paragraph [0033]-[0036]); and
a second grinding step of grinding at least a bottom surface of the first circular recess after the first grinding step (S50 “ORDINARY GRINDING STEP”, is interpreted to be a second grinding step, discussed in paragraph [0039]-[0040]),
wherein, in the first grinding step, the bottom surface of the first circular recess is ground into a shape of being concentrical and differing in thickness in a radial direction from a center to a circumference of the first circular recess (see Fig. 4a, 4b, bottom surface 11c2 has differing thickness in the radial direction after the oblique grinding step S30 ), and,
in the second grinding step, the bottom surface of the first circular recess is ground to have a uniform thickness (see Fig. 6, circular recess 11c2 is ground to have a uniform thickness).
Suzuki does not disclose use of a second grinding wheel including grindstones having a particle diameter smaller than that of the first grinding wheel for the second grinding step.
However, Schneegans discloses a workpiece grinding method for a wafer similar to Suzuki and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Schneegans discloses a first grinding step using a coarse grinding pad and a second grinding step using a low damage fine grinding pad (Schneegans Col 6 lines 9-51) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to mean it has abrasive particle diameters smaller than that of the coarse grinding wheel.
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Suzuki teaches all elements except disclose use of a second grinding wheel including grindstones having a particle diameter smaller than that of the first grinding wheel for the second grinding step. Schneegans teaches disclose use of a second grinding wheel including grindstones having a particle diameter smaller than that of the first grinding wheel for the second grinding step, which has the function of removing any damage created during a prior grinding process and finishing the wafer to a desired thickness. When combined into Suzuki by having the second grinding step use second grinding wheel having a particular diameter smaller than that of the first grinding wheel, it maintains its function of removing damage created during a prior grinding process and finishes the wafer to a desired thickness. One of ordinary skill would expect predictable results because both references pertain to grinding methods that function in the same manner in the environment of wafer manufacturing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Suzuki in view of Schneegans because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Suzuki in view of Schneegans further renders obvious:
2. The workpiece grinding method according to claim 1, wherein, in the first grinding step, the bottom surface of the first circular recess is ground into a shape of being concentrical and differing in thickness in a state in which a grinding surface of the first grinding wheel and the holding surface are positioned in a non-parallel state (Suzuki, S30 “OBLIQUE GRINDING STEP” is interpreted to be a first grinding step, discussed in paragraph [0033]-[0036] discloses an angle between the grinding wheel and the holding surface seen in Fig. 4A, 4B).
4. The workpiece grinding method according to claim 1, wherein, in the second grinding step, the bottom surface of the first circular recess is ground by a grinding amount of not less than such a grinding amount that a grinding damage generated in the first grinding step is removable, after the bottom surface of the first circular recess is ground into the shape of being concentrical and differing in thickness in the radial direction in the first grinding step (Scheegans Col. 42-51 discloses the second grinding step removing the defects caused by the first grinding step, when implementing the teachings from Schneegans into the device of Suzuki, the modified device would similarly remove any damage caused by the first grinding step by using the finer second grinding wheel as taught by Schneegans).
5. The workpiece grinding method according to claim 4, wherein, in the first grinding step, the bottom surface of the first circular recess is formed into a shape of differing in thickness by an amount corresponding to such a grinding amount that the grinding damage generated in the first grinding step is removable by grinding in the second grinding step (Scheegans Col. 42-51 discloses the second grinding step removing the defects caused by the first grinding step, when implementing the teachings from Schneegans into the device of Suzuki, the modified device would similarly remove any damage caused by the first grinding step by using the finer second grinding wheel as taught by Schneegans).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious a workpiece grinding method including wherein the first grinding step includes a wall surface forming step of bringing the grinding surface of the first grinding wheel and the holding surface closer to each other in a state in which the grinding surface of the first grinding wheel and the holding surface are positioned in a parallel state, to form a wall surface of the annular projecting part, and a bottom surface forming step of bringing the grinding surface of the first grinding wheel and the holding surface closer to each other and bringing a rotational axis of the first grinding wheel and a rotational axis of the chuck table closer to each other, to grind the bottom surface of the first circular recess into a shape of being concentrical and differing in thickness in the radial direction, after the wall surface forming step as claimed in claim 3 in combination with its base claim limitations.
While the prior art discloses using a single grinding wheel to form the wall and the bottom surface, there does not appear to be sufficient rationale to combine the prior art elements to achieve the differing thickness aspect of the bottom surface of the circular recess in combination with the parallel state of the wall forming surface. The closes prior art Suzuki (US 2021/0291316) does not disclose the parallel state for the wall forming step prior to the bottom surface forming step as it has forms its wall with an angled orientation during its oblique grinding step.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kitano (US 12394617) discloses the first grinding step includes a wall surface forming step of bringing the grinding surface of the first grinding wheel and the holding surface closer to each other in a state in which the grinding surface of the first grinding wheel and the holding surface are positioned in a parallel state, to form a wall surface of the annular projecting part but does not have the non-uniform bottom surface in Figs. 3a-3b, and discloses a different embodiment in Fig. 7-8 in which the first grinding step is angled relative to the workpiece holder, and results in a non-uniform thickness bottom surface but does not have the parallel state operation in its first grinding step for wall formation; and discloses an embodiment that uses a parallel state to form a wall portion in a first grinding step, but does not form a uniform thickness recess
Nishihara et al. (US 2016/0064230), Yoshida et al. (US 2008/0090505) discloses a workpiece grinding method for grinding a back surface of a workpiece formed on a front surface thereof with a device region and a peripheral surplus region surrounding the device region, to form a circular recess and an annular projecting part surrounding the circular recess, the workpiece grinding method comprising:
a holding step of holding the workpiece on a holding surface of a chuck table;
a first grinding step of grinding a part of the back surface corresponding to the device region of the workpiece held by the chuck table, by use of a first grinding wheel to form a first circular recess and an annular projecting part in the back surface of the workpiece; and a second grinding step of grinding at least a bottom surface of the first circular recess by use of a second grinding wheel including grindstones having a particle diameter smaller than that of the first grinding wheel, after the first grinding step,
Kuwana (JP 2015072971A) discloses a first grinding step that results in a bottom surface of the first circular recess to be concentrical and differing in thickness in a radial direction from a center to a circumference of the first circular recess, and a second grinding process to achieve a uniform flat bottom surface as seen in Fig. 2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dustin T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-0163. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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 E. 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.
/DUSTIN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 February 4, 2026