Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/549,610

SEMICONDUCTOR CHIP MANUFACTURING METHOD AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 08, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, THANH T
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Tokyo Electron Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1162 granted / 1397 resolved
+15.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1436
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
51.7%
+11.7% vs TC avg
§102
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
§112
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1397 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 12/30/25 is acknowledged. Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 C.F.R. 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed 9/8/23 have been considered. Oath/Declaration Oath/Declaration filed on 9/8/23 has been considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Higashino et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0213594). Referring to figures 6-54, Higashino et al. teaches a semiconductor chip manufacturing method, comprising: preparing a stacked substrate (1W) including a first semiconductor substrate (1S), a device layer (see paragraphs# 76-79), a separation layer (4a), and a third semiconductor substrate (4) in this order (see figures 6-7, paragraph# 97); dicing the first semiconductor substrate, the device layer, and the separation layer (see figures 9-10, paragraphs# 99-102); attaching the diced stacked substrate to a tape (10a) from an opposite side to the third semiconductor substrate, and mounting the diced stacked substrate to a frame (10b) with the tape therebetween (see figures 14, paragraph# 109); radiating, after mounting the stacked substrate to the frame, a laser beam penetrating the third semiconductor substrate to the separation layer to form a modification layer at an interface between the third semiconductor substrate and the separation layer, or at an inside of the separation layer (see paragraph# 111); and separating the third semiconductor substrate and the separation layer starting from the modification layer formed at the interface between the third semiconductor substrate and the separation layer or at the inside of the separation layer (see paragraphs# 113-116, figures 6-21). Regarding to claim 2, the stacked substrate includes a gettering layer formed on a surface of the first semiconductor substrate opposite to the device layer before the dicing, and the dicing includes dicing the gettering layer (see paragraph# 98, see figure 8). Regarding to claim 6, the mounting of the stacked substrate (W) to the frame (10b) includes attaching a die attach film formed on a surface of the tape (10a) and the first semiconductor substrate to face each other (see figure 14). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashino et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0213594) as applied to claims 1-2, 6 in view of Yamazaki et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0280417). Referring to figures 6-54, Higashino et al. teaches a semiconductor chip manufacturing method, comprising: preparing a stacked substrate (1W) including a first semiconductor substrate (1S), a device layer (see paragraphs# 76-79), a separation layer (4a), and a third semiconductor substrate (4) in this order (see figures 6-7, paragraph# 97); dicing the first semiconductor substrate, the device layer, and the separation layer (see figures 9-10, paragraphs# 99-102); attaching the diced stacked substrate to a tape (10a) from an opposite side to the third semiconductor substrate, and mounting the diced stacked substrate to a frame (10b) with the tape therebetween (see figures 14, paragraph# 109); radiating, after mounting the stacked substrate to the frame, a laser beam penetrating the third semiconductor substrate to the separation layer to form a modification layer at an interface between the third semiconductor substrate and the separation layer, or at an inside of the separation layer (see paragraph# 111); and separating the third semiconductor substrate and the separation layer starting from the modification layer formed at the interface between the third semiconductor substrate and the separation layer or at the inside of the separation layer (see paragraphs# 113-116, figures 6-21). However, the reference does not clearly teach the gettering layer is a thermal oxide layer formed by thermally oxidizing the surface of the first semiconductor substrate. Yamazaki et al. teaches the gettering layer is a thermal oxide layer formed by thermally oxidizing the surface of the first semiconductor substrate (see paragraph# 106, figure 8a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a thermal oxide layer formed by thermally oxidizing the surface of the first semiconductor substrate in Higashino et al as taught by Yamazaki et al. because thermal oxide would provide excellent interface and high electrical layer. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-5, 7 are 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. None of the prior art teaches or suggests the stacked substrate includes a die attach film formed on a surface of the gettering layer opposite to the first semiconductor substrate before the dicing, and the dicing includes dicing the die attach film (in claim 4), the stacked substrate includes a die attach film formed on a surface of the first semiconductor substrate opposite to the device layer before the dicing, and the dicing includes dicing the die attach film (in claim 5) and; the device layer includes a first device layer formed on a surface of the first semiconductor substrate, and a second device layer bonded to the first device layer (in claim 7). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thanh Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1695, or by Email via address Thanh.Nguyen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:00AM to 3:30PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Yara Green, can be reached on (571) 270-3035. The fax phone number for this Group is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to thy Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /THANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 08, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598823
IMAGE SENSOR STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581887
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SILICON CARBIDE SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND SILICON CARBIDE SEMICONDUCTOR CHIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575399
INTERCONNECT STRUCTURE INCLUDING VERTICALLY STACKED POWER AND GROUND LINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12575404
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE WITH PROTECTION LAYER AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12575406
PASSIVATION STRUCTURE WITH INCREASED THICKNESS FOR METAL PADS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1397 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month