Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 27, 2026
Application No. 18/609,222

WAFER THINNING METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 19, 2024
Priority
Mar 29, 2023 — JP 2023-053877
Examiner
TRAN, THIEN S
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
DISCO Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
999 granted / 1389 resolved
+11.9% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1440
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
53.9%
+13.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1389 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hinohara (US 2019/0160708). With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Hinohara teaches a wafer thinning method (title, abstract) for a wafer having a first surface (Figs 1-4, end face 54, 0030) and a second surface (end face 52, 0030) that is opposite to the first surface, the method comprising: a first support substrate bonding step of bonding a first support substrate (Fig 2, cylindrical holding table 14, 0025) to the first surface of the wafer (0032, the ingot 50 may be fixed to the chuck table 66 by interposing an adhesive); a separation start point (Figs 4A, 4B, modified portions 70, 0032) forming step of positioning a focused spot of a laser beam with a wavelength transmittable through the wafer from the second surface side of the wafer inside the wafer (Figs 4A, 4B, focal point FP, 0032), and applying the laser beam while moving the focused spot (focusing device 68, 0031) and the wafer relative to each other in a direction parallel (0032, while moving the chuck table 66 in the x-axis direction aligned with the direction orthogonal to the direction A in which the off angle α is formed, a peel-off layer forming processing is carried out in which a pulsed laser beam LB of such a wavelength as to be transmitted through single crystal SiC is applied through the focusing device 68 to the ingot 50) to the second surface, thereby forming separation start points each including a modified layer parallel to the second surface and cracks extending from the modified layer (Fig 4B, modified portion 70); a first ultrasonic wave applying step of, after the first support substrate bonding step and the separation start point forming step are carried out, applying an ultrasonic wave to the wafer from the second surface side of the wafer (Fig 6, ultrasonic wave oscillating unit 6, end face 6a, layer of water LW, 0034); a second support substrate bonding step of, after the first ultrasonic wave applying step is carried out, bonding a second support substrate to the second surface of the wafer (Fig 7, peeling unit 10, end face 52, 0034) ; and a thinning step of, after the second support substrate bonding step is carried out, separating the wafer at the separation start points into a first wafer having the first surface and a second wafer having the second surface, thereby thinning the wafer (Fig 8, lifting means 34, wafer 76, 0035-0036). With respect to the limitations of claim 2, Hinohara teaches further comprising: a second ultrasonic wave applying step of, after the second support substrate bonding step is carried out and before the thinning step is carried out, applying the ultrasonic wave to the wafer from the second support substrate side of the wafer (Figs 1, 6, 0034, the holding table 14 is rotated and the first moving piece 20 is moved in the Y-axis direction such that the ultrasonic wave oscillating unit 6 passes over the whole area of the first end face 52, whereby the ultrasonic wave is applied to the whole part of the peel-off layer 74). Claim 3 is also rejected because it is dependent upon claim 1. 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. The factual inquiries 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hinohara (US 2019/0160708) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Nao (US 2018/03101378). With respect to the limitations of claim 4, Hinohara teaches the wafer is a substrate including single crystal SiC or formed from other material than single crystal SiC, such as Si (silicon) or GaN (gallium nitride). Hinohara discloses the claimed invention except for the wafer is a substrate including lithium tantalate. However, Nao discloses that the wafer is a substrate including lithium tantalate (0025, 0041, lithium thatalate) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the SiC wafer substrate of Hinohara with the wafer is a substrate including lithium tantalate of Nao for the purpose of using a known alternative ceramic substrate material to the SiC semiconductor substrate material. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00]. 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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. /THIEN S TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 10/1/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 19, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12772346
POWER CONVERSION DEVICE FOR ELECTRIC RANGE, AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
3y 5m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12765718
COUNTERTOP COOKING SYSTEM
2y 4m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12746626
Parallel Robotics System and Method of Induction Kinetic Hybrid Welding Processes
3y 8m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12734607
LENS ASSEMBLY AND LASER WELDING HEAD
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12734744
BOTTLE PREFORM HEATING APPARATUS
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+24.0%)
3y 3m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1389 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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