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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun (US Patent No. 6,105,567).
Regarding claim 1, in FIGs. 2-5, Sun discloses a semiconductor dicing saw system comprising: a semiconductor dicing saw having a cutting blade (20); a chuck table (42) located below the semiconductor dicing saw for supporting a semiconductor substrate (50) to be cut by the semiconductor dicing saw; and a shower head (22/24/29) located adjacent the semiconductor dicing saw, the shower head comprising: a first nozzle (29) positioned and oriented to direct a first stream of fluid at the cutting blade; and a second nozzle (24) positioned and oriented to direct a second stream of fluid at a juncture of the cutting blade and a semiconductor substrate being cut by the cutting blade (see FIG. 4), wherein the first nozzle and the second nozzle are disposed in a confronting relationship with a front edge (or cutting edge) of the cutting blade, and wherein the second nozzle is located below the first nozzle.
Regarding claim 3, in FIG. 4, Sun discloses that the second nozzle is positioned and oriented to direct the second stream of fluid at a mean angle in a range of 30 degrees to 45 degrees relative to a top surface of the chuck table.
Regarding claim 5, in FIGs. 2-5, Sun discloses that a top of the cutting blade rotates toward the shower head.
Regarding claim 12, in FIGs. 2-5, Sun discloses a shower head for a semiconductor dicing saw system, the shower head (22/24/29) comprising: a first nozzle (29) positioned and oriented to direct a first stream in a first direction; and a second nozzle (24) positioned and oriented to direct a second stream of fluid in a second direction different from the first direction, wherein the first nozzle and the second nozzle are disposed in a confronting relationship with a front edge (or cutting edge) of the cutting blade of the semiconductor dicing saw system, and wherein the second nozzle is located below the first nozzle.
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 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US Patent No. 6,105,567) in view of Phaowongsa (US Patent No. 7,572,168).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Sun appears not to explicitly disclose that the first nozzle is positioned and oriented to direct the first stream of fluid in a first direction, and wherein the second nozzle is positioned and oriented to direct the second stream of fluid at a mean angle in a range of 20 degrees to 45 degrees relative to the first direction.
The art however well recognized a first nozzle that is positioned and oriented to direct a first stream of fluid in a first direction, and wherein a second nozzle is positioned and oriented to direct a second stream of fluid at a mean angle in a range of 20 degrees to 45 degrees relative to the first direction to be suitable for use as a nozzle configuration in a semiconductor dicing saw system. See, for example, Phaowongsa, FIGs. 7-8 which shows a first nozzle (upper most nozzles of 730) and a second nozzle (lowermost nozzles of 730) wherein the first nozzle is positioned and oriented to direct the first stream of fluid (735) in a first direction, and wherein the second nozzle is positioned and oriented to direct the second stream of fluid (735) at a mean angle in a range of 20 degrees to 45 degrees relative to the first direction.
According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, it 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 to have formed the Sun disclosed semiconductor dicing saw system such that the first nozzle is positioned and oriented to direct the first stream of fluid in a first direction, and wherein the second nozzle is positioned and oriented to direct the second stream of fluid at a mean angle in a range of 20 degrees to 45 degrees relative to the first direction for its recognized suitability as a nozzle configuration in a semiconductor dicing saw system.
Claims 6, 8, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US Patent No. 6,105,567).
Regarding claim 6, Sun appears not to explicitly disclose that the shower head is spaced away from an edge of the cutting blade a distance in a range of 0.5 inches to 2 inches.
There is no evidence showing the criticality of the claimed distance.
The semiconductor art well recognized that the distance between the shower head and the cutting blade controls parameters critical for device performance, including spray coverage. As shown in and described with respect to FIGs. 3-4, Sun implicitly discloses that the distance between the shower head and the cutting blade impacts the spray coverage (e.g. at a fixed spray arc, moving the shower head toward/away from the cutting blade will change the spray coverage). The distance between the shower head and the cutting blade is therefore an art recognized result affecting parameter.
According to well established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.05), therefore, it 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 to determine (for example by routine experimentation) the optimum distance between the shower head and the cutting blade.
Regarding claim 8, Sun appears not to explicitly disclose that the second nozzle is located a distance in a range of 0.5 inches to 2 inches above a top surface of the chuck table.
There is no evidence showing the criticality of the claimed distance.
The semiconductor art well recognized that the distance between the second nozzle and a top surface of the chuck table controls parameters critical for device performance, including spray coverage. As shown in and described with respect to FIG. 3, Sun implicitly discloses that the distance between the second nozzle and a top surface of the chuck table impacts the spray coverage (e.g. at a fixed spray arc, moving the second nozzle toward/away from the chuck table will change the spray coverage). The distance between the second nozzle and a top surface of the chuck table is therefore an art recognized result affecting parameter.
According to well established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.05), therefore, it 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 to determine (for example by routine experimentation) the optimum distance between the distance between the second nozzle and a top surface of the chuck table.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Sun appears not to explicitly disclose that a vertical position of the shower head is adjustable.
However, as described in the rejection of claim 8, it 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 to determine (for example by routine experimentation) the optimum distance between the distance between the second nozzle (i.e. shower head) and a top surface of the chuck table.
Further, according to well established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 III V D), therefore, it 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 to make vertical position of the shower head adjustable to provide an adjustable/optimized spray coverage.
Claims 9-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US Patent No. 6,105,567) in view of Collier (US Pub. No. 2010/0009517).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 15-16, Sun discloses that the first/second stream of fluid is deionized water (col. 4, lines 34-36).
Sun appears not to explicitly disclose that the first/second stream of fluid is deionized water mixed with a surfactant.
Collier discloses that a mixture of deionized water and a surfactant are used as a fluid during a wafer dicing process to suppress contaminants and/or reduce corrosion (see abstract).
To suppress contaminants and/or reduce corrosion it 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 to use deionized water mixed with a surfactant as the first/second stream of fluid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In FIG. 4, US Patent No. 6,467,278 discloses a semiconductor dicing saw system comprising: a semiconductor dicing saw having a cutting blade (404); a semiconductor substrate (420) to be cut by the semiconductor dicing saw; and a shower head (408) located adjacent the semiconductor dicing saw, the shower head comprising: a first nozzle (top or middle nozzle) positioned and oriented to direct a first stream of fluid at the cutting blade; and a second nozzle (bottom nozzle) positioned and oriented to direct a second stream of fluid at a juncture of the cutting blade and a semiconductor substrate being cut by the cutting blade, wherein the first nozzle and the second nozzle are disposed in a confronting relationship with a front edge (or cutting edge) of the cutting blade, and wherein the second nozzle is located below the first nozzle.
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 TUCKER J WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3234. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/TUCKER J WRIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights