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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/18/28 is acknowledged.
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.
Examiner notes on Claim Interpretation:
The preamble has been considered limiting to the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2111).
In the claims, “sharp” and “rounded” are used in relation to “corners” (ex. Claim 1). In applicant’s specification these are discussed at [43-44], where [43] states “As shown in the illustrated embodiment, one or more corners formed between the sides may be rounded corners (e.g., has one or more radii of curvature).” and [44] states “[44] In some embodiments, some or even none of the corners are rounded (i.e., some or all are sharp corners)”. That is, any “corner” which is not “rounded” is then assumed to be “sharp” as these appear to be the only two options for a corner description in applicant’s specification.
Claim 2 was considered for rejection under 112(d) but since the wording of claim 2 (“wherein the convex polygon has one or more rounded corners.”) is different than the wording of claim 1 (“each of the corners formed between two sides of the polygon other than the base are rounded” and MPEP 608.01 (n) III states “A dependent claim does not lack compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) simply because there is a question as to the significance of the further limitation added by the dependent claim.” ultimately no rejection was made.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usami (US 20180290265, on applicant’s IDS) in view of either JP 2006224201 (on applicant’s IDS, using applicant supplied translation), hereinafter JP201, or Mujumdar et al. (US 7044835).
Regarding Claim 1, Usami discloses
A method for double side grinding a semiconductor structure (ex. Fig. 5, ex. [0002]), the method comprising:
positioning the semiconductor structure (11) between first and second grinding wheels (1, ex. [0054-0056]), each grinding wheel comprising:
a support wheel (1, Figs. 1, 2, 5); and
a plurality of abrasive members (3) that extend axially outward from the support wheel, each abrasive member having a wafer-engaging surface, the wafer-engaging surface being shaped as a convex polygon with at least five sides (ex. Figs. 3, 4, 7), wherein one of the sides of the polygon comprise a base and a plurality of sides other than the base, where
each of the corners formed with the base are sharp corners (as shown in cited figures); and
grinding the semiconductor structure by contacting the first and second grinding wheels with the semiconductor structure and rotating the first and second grinding wheels relative to each other (ex. [0056]).
Usami does not disclose
each of the corners formed between two sides of the polygon other than the base are rounded.
JP201 teaches
For a grinding wheel,
corners formed between two sides of the polygon are rounded (“convex curved surfaces” - [0020, 0029]).
Mujumdar teaches
For a grinding wheel,
corners formed between two sides of the polygon are rounded (Col. 8, lines 17-41 including - “Also in FIG. 6A is shown radius r, which is the internal radius of the corner where side wall 66 meets top surface 62. It is generally preferred to have a slightly rounded or radiused corner because it is believed that a rounded corner is easier to thoroughly fill with material (that is, resin and abrasive particles) and remove from the tooling.”).
Since both Usami and JP201 references are directed to grinding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abrasive members of Usami to include rounded corners as taught by JP201 such that “cutting resistance is relaxed and chipping is less likely to occur” ([0029]).
Alternatively:
Since both Usami and Mujumdar references are directed to grinding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abrasive members of Usami to include rounded corners as taught by Mujumdar such that a rounded corner is easier to thoroughly fill with material and remove from the tooling.
Regarding Claim 2,
The method as set forth in claim 1 wherein the convex polygon has one or more rounded corners (Usami as modified).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usami in view of JP201 or Mujumdar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP201.
Regarding Claim 5, Usami as modified discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for
The method as set forth in claim 1 wherein the abrasive members comprise diamond grit.
JP201 teaches
For a grinding wheel,
wherein the abrasive members comprise diamond grit ([0002, 0016, 0019]).
Since both references are directed to grinding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abrasive members of Usami to comprise diamond grit as taught by JP201 as an appropriate grinding material that would perform with predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usami in view of JP201 or Mujumdar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of either Mujumdar or Umaji (JP 2017213664 A, machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 9, Usami as modified discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for
The method as set forth in claim 1 wherein the convex polygon is a convex pentagon.
Mujumdar teaches
For grinding,
wherein the convex polygon is a convex pentagon (“...or the like” Col. 15, lines 15-19 or Col. 8, lines 47-57 “any geometric shape”).
Umaji teaches
For grinding,
wherein the convex polygon is a convex pentagon (from translation - “In the grindstone 22f shown in FIG. 11, a grinding surface 224 for grinding a workpiece is formed in a pentagonal shape.”, Fig. 11).
Since both Usami and Mujumdar references are directed to grinding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the convex polygon of Usami to be a convex pentagon as taught by Mujumdar as an appropriate shape that would perform with predictable results.
Alternatively:
Since both Usami and Umaji references are directed to grinding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the convex polygon of Usami to be a convex pentagon as taught by Umaji as an appropriate shape that would perform with predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those items on the 892 each teach elements of the instant invention related to grinding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday 9-3pm (part-time).
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 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights