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 .
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, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (US Publication No. 2020/0027773) in view of Yamamoto et al (US Publication No. 2021/0034040) and Okuma (US Publication No. 2020/0290157).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a method comprising: aligning a wafer Fig 4, 100 over a wafer chuck Fig 4, S; using a rotating blade Fig 4, 104 having a first rotational speed to remove an annular portion of an upper surface of the wafer ¶0030 and 0032; as the rotating blade is removing the annular portion of the upper surface of the wafer Fig 3B and Fig 5A ¶0030 and 0032, measuring a parameter of the wafer at a position adjacent to the rotating blade ¶0029. Lin discloses all the limitations but silent on the step of changing the rotational speed based on a parameter. Whereas Yamamoto discloses a method comprising: measuring a parameter of the wafer at a position adjacent to the rotating blade Fig 1 and 2; and changing the first rotational speed of the rotating blade to a second rotational speed when the parameter is greater than a predetermined threshold ¶0058-0070 Fig 2. Lin and Yamamoto are analogous art because they are directed to wafer dicing/cutting and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lin because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin and incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto to improve the dicing accuracy. Lin and Yamamoto disclose all the limitations except for the laser sensing apparatus. Whereas Okuma discloses probing the wafer at a position adjacent to the rotating blade with emitted light from a laser sensing apparatus; detecting re-emitted light from the position adjacent to the rotating blade with the laser sensing apparatus; determining a parameter of the wafer at the position from the re-emitted light ¶0007, 0076-0081. Lin and Okuma are analogous art because they are directed to wafer dicing/cutting and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lin because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin and incorporate the teachings of Okuma to improve the manufacturing accuracy.
Regarding claim 4, Okuma discloses wherein the parameter is measured using confocal laser scanning microscopy¶0076-0081.
Claims 2, 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (US Publication No. 2020/0027773) in view of Yamamoto et al (US Publication No. 2021/0034040), Okuma (US Publication No. 2020/0290157) and in further view of Urban et al (US Publication No. 2017/0053049).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses all the limitations but silent on the specific parameters. Whereas Urban discloses wherein the parameter is internal stress in the wafer, and wherein the predetermined threshold is a stress threshold Fig 3 ¶0068-0070. Lin and Urban are analogous art because they are directed to wafer dicing/cutting and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lin because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin and incorporate the teachings of Urban to improve the manufacturing accuracy.
Regarding claim 5, Urban discloses changing a surrounding temperature of the wafer when the parameter is greater than the predetermined threshold Fig 3 ¶0068-0070.
Regarding claim 6, Urban discloses changing a surrounding pressure of the wafer with the parameter is greater than the predetermined threshold Fig 3 ¶0004, 0068-0070.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (US Publication No. 2020/0027773) in view of Yamamoto et al (US Publication No. 2021/0034040) and Okuma (US Publication No. 2020/0290157) and in further view of Hu (US Publication No. 2018/0161928).
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses all the limitations except for the specific parameter. Whereas Hu discloses wherein measuring the parameter is based on Raman scattering ¶0022-0023. Lin and Hu are analogous art because they are directed to wafer dicing/cutting and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lin because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin and incorporate the teachings of Hu to improve the manufacturing accuracy.
Claims 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (US Publication No. 2020/0027773) in view of Yamamoto et al (US Publication No. 2021/0034040) and in further view of Hu (US Publication No. 2018/0161928).
Regarding claim 16, Lin discloses a method of processing a wafer comprising: using a rotating blade to remove an annular portion of the wafer at a first removal rate Fig 4; as the rotating blade is removing the annular portion of the wafer, measuring a parameter of the wafer¶0029-0032. Lin discloses all the limitations but silent on the step of changing the rotational speed based on a parameter. Whereas Yamamoto discloses a method comprising: measuring a parameter of the wafer and changing a process variable based on a comparison involving the parameter and a predetermined threshold to remove a portion of the wafer at a second removal rate less than the first removal rate ¶0058-0070 Fig 1-2. Lin and Yamamoto are analogous art because they are directed to wafer dicing/cutting and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lin because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin and incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto to improve the dicing accuracy. Lin and Yamamoto disclose all the limitations but silent on the parameter measurement. Whereas Hu discloses wherein the parameter is a measure of stress in the wafer obtained through Raman scattering ¶0022-0024. Lin and Hu are analogous art because they are directed to wafer dicing/cutting and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lin because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin and incorporate the teachings of Hu to improve the manufacturing accuracy.
Regarding claim 20, Yamamoto discloses wherein the parameter is measured at a location adjacent to the rotating blade Fig 1 ¶0037.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (US Publication No. 2020/0027773) in view of Yamamoto et al (US Publication No. 2021/0034040) and Hu (US Publication No. 2018/0161928) and in further view of Okuma (US Publication No. 2020/0290157).
Regarding claim 17, Lin discloses all the limitations but silent on the type of parameter measurement. Whereas Okuma discloses wherein the measuring of the parameter of the wafer involves using confocal laser scanning microscopy ¶0076-0081. Lin and Okuma are analogous art because they are directed to wafer dicing/cutting and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lin because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin and incorporate the teachings of Okuma to improve the manufacturing accuracy.
Regarding claim 18, Yamamoto discloses wherein the process variable is a rotation speed of the wafer, a rotation speed of the rotating blade, a temperature of a chamber that the wafer is disposed within, or a pressure inside the chamber that the wafer is disposed within Fig 1 ¶0037 and 0060-0070.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11, 13-15, 22, 23 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: After further search and consideration of Applicant’s response, it is determined that the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach or suggest “using a first rotating blade and a second rotating blade to remove an annular portion of an upper surface of the wafer, wherein the first rotating blade is positioned on an opposite side of the wafer as the second rotating blade, and wherein the wafer is being rotated at a first rotational speed; as the first rotating blade and the second rotating blade are-is removing the annular portion of the upper surface of the wafer, measuring a parameter of the wafer at a first position and a second position, the first position between the first rotating blade and a center of the wafer, and the second position between the second rotating blade and the center of the wafer… when a first measurement of the parameter at either the first position or the second position exceeds a predetermined threshold”, as recited in independent claim 8.
Claims 11, 13-15, 22, 23 are also allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed independent base claims.
Claims 21, 24-25 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTINE A ENAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -4:30 pm.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571 272 1670. 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.
/CHRISTINE A ENAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights