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 with traverse of Species a in the reply filed on August 14, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that applicant would like to elect an embodiment not identified, in which the dividing step is performed by a cutting unit that includes a rotating blade. Examiners recognizes and accepts this elected embodiment (claims 1-8 readable thereon), and the election of this embodiment is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shigematsu et al (USPGPUB 20170372908, hereinafter “Shigematsu”) .
Regarding Claim 1, Shigematsu teaches (Figs. 1 and 2) a method of processing a workpiece to divide the workpiece into a plurality of device chips, comprising: a dividing step of dividing a workpiece (1) held on a holding table (6) to produce a plurality of device chips (5) from the workpiece (1); an image capturing step of capturing an image of ([0030], “The crack detecting unit 44 oscillates ultrasonic waves toward the processing-target object 1 and observes reflected waves”; reflected ultrasonic wave detection is a form of imaging) the workpiece (1) while the dividing step is being carried out or after the dividing step has been carried out ([0037], “The cutting processing in the cutting step is advanced with repetition of the detection of a crack by the crack detecting unit 44.”); a detecting step of detecting from the image whether there is a chip fly-off from the workpiece or not and a chip fly-off region where a chip fly-off has occurred (the crack detecting unit would detect the location of a crack based on the ultrasonic imaging, and it would indicate the location of the crack); and a warning step of warning of at least either one of a cause of the chip fly-off and a countermeasure against chip fly-offs according to a region where the chip fly-off has been detected ([0033], “the informing unit 62 informs the user of the cutting apparatus 2 of the generation of the crack in the processing-target object”).
Regarding Claim 8, Shigematsu teaches an apparatus for processing a workpiece to divide the workpiece into a plurality of device chips, comprising: a holding table (6) for holding a workpiece (1) thereon; a dividing unit which divides the workpiece held on the holding table to produce a plurality of device chips from the workpiece; an image capturing unit which captures an image of the workpiece while the workpiece is being divided by the dividing unit or after the workpiece has been divided by the dividing unit ([0030], “The crack detecting unit 44 oscillates ultrasonic waves toward the processing-target object 1 and observes reflected waves”; reflected ultrasonic wave detection is a form of imaging) ; and a controller, wherein the controller includes a detecting section ([0037], “The cutting processing in the cutting step is advanced with repetition of the detection of a crack by the crack detecting unit 44.”) which detects a chip fly-off region where a chip fly-off has occurred by processing an image captured of the workpiece by the image capturing unit (the crack detecting unit would detect the location of a crack based on the ultrasonic imaging, and it would indicate the location of the crack), and a warning section which warns of at least either one of a cause of the chip fly-off and a countermeasure against chip fly-offs according to the chip fly-off region detected by the detecting section ([0033], “the informing unit 62 informs the user of the cutting apparatus 2 of the generation of the crack in the processing-target object”)..
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigematsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagasaka et al (USPGPUB 20080055575, hereinafter “Nagasaka”).
Regarding Claim 2, Shigematsu teaches the method of processing a workpiece according to claim 1, but is silent with regards to a method wherein, in a case in which chip fly-offs have been detected in one region of at least a desired number of workpieces in the detecting step, the warning step includes a step of warning of foreign matter deposited on a holding surface of the holding table
Nagasaka teaches a method wherein, in a case in which chip fly-offs have been detected in one region of at least a desired number of workpieces in the detecting step, the warning step includes a step of warning of foreign matter deposited on a holding surface of the holding table ([0130], “and the control device 7 determines whether or not the contamination state of the top surface 24 of the substrate table 22 is within an allowable range, or whether or not a foreign substance is present on the top surface 24 of the substrate table 22, based on the detection result from the alignment system 40”; a warning structure to inform the user of foreign substances would be obvious in view of the cited prior art as the information would be highly material to the manufacturing/dicing process).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results, before the date of effective filing, to incorporate the matter detection of Nagasaka into the method of Shigematsu in order to arrive at the expected result of improving the process of dicing by giving the user a means by which to deal with foreign matter’s presence on a dicing table with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 3, Shigematsu teaches the method of processing a workpiece according to claim 1, but is silent with regards to
Nagasaka teaches a method wherein, in a case in which chip fly-offs have been detected in one region of at least a desired number of workpieces in the detecting step, the warning step includes a step of proposing cleaning a holding surface of the holding table ([0132], “if the contamination state of the top surface 24 of the substrate table 22 is determined not to be within the allowable range, the control device 7 carries out the cleaning operation”; a warning structure to inform the user of the cleaning process would be obvious in view of the cited prior art as the information would be highly material to the manufacturing/dicing process).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results, before the date of effective filing, to incorporate the cleaning of Nagasaka into the method of Shigematsu in order to arrive at the expected result of improving the process of dicing by giving the user a means by which to deal with foreign matter’s presence on a dicing table with reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigematsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kadoi (USPGPUB 20070175466).
Regarding Claim 4, Shigematsu teaches the method of processing a workpiece according to claim 1, but is silent with regards to a method wherein the dividing step includes a step of cutting the workpiece with a cutting blade while cutting water is supplied to a processing spot where the cutting blade cuts the workpiece, and in a case in which a chip fly-off has been detected from an outer edge of the workpiece in the detecting step, the warning step includes a step of warning of a high flow rate for the cutting water.
Kadoi teaches a method wherein the dividing step includes a step of cutting the workpiece with a cutting blade while cutting water is supplied to a processing spot where the cutting blade cuts the workpiece ([0021], “the dicing blade is surrounded by a case 3 filled with a cooling water 4 and is submerged in the cooling water 4”), and in a case in which a chip fly-off has been detected from an outer edge of the workpiece in the detecting step, the warning step includes a step of warning of a high flow rate for the cutting water ([0021], “By adjusting an amount of water continuously supplied from the cooling water nozzle 8 into the case 3, a proper pressure is applied to an inside of the case 3, thereby sufficiently supplying the cooling water to the cutting point and the vicinity thereof. As a result, lack of cooling at the cutting point which has conventionally been the problem is solved. Further, a wide region including the cutting point is in the water, so the excessive force is not applied only to the cutting point. Therefore, there does not occur flapping of the semiconductor chip due to increase in the amount of water”; a warning structure to inform the user of a need for a pressure adjustment process would be obvious in view of the cited prior art as the information would be highly material to the manufacturing/dicing process).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results, before the date of effective filing, to incorporate the pressure adjustment of Kadoi into the method of Shigematsu in order to arrive at the expected result of improving the process of dicing by allowing for an optimal pressure flow with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 5, Shigematsu teaches the method of processing a workpiece according to claim 1, but is silent with regards to a method wherein the dividing step includes a step of cutting the workpiece with a cutting blade while cutting water is supplied to a processing spot where the cutting blade cuts the workpiece, and in a case in which a chip fly-off has been detected from an outer edge of the workpiece in the detecting step, the warning step includes a step of proposing adjusting a flow rate for the cutting water.
Kadoi teaches a method wherein the dividing step includes a step of cutting the workpiece with a cutting blade while cutting water is supplied to a processing spot where the cutting blade cuts the workpiece, and in a case in which a chip fly-off has been detected from an outer edge of the workpiece in the detecting step, the warning step includes a step of proposing adjusting a flow rate for the cutting water([0021], “By adjusting an amount of water continuously supplied from the cooling water nozzle 8 into the case 3, a proper pressure is applied to an inside of the case 3, thereby sufficiently supplying the cooling water to the cutting point and the vicinity thereof.”; proposing the adjusting is seen as inherent as part of a standard user process for a dicing apparatus).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results, before the date of effective filing, to incorporate the pressure flow rate proposal of Kadoi into the method of Shigematsu in order to arrive at the expected result of improving the process of dicing by allowing for a user to maintain an optimal pressure flow with reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigematsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karasaki et al (USPGPUB 20190371669, hereinafter “Karasaki”).
Regarding Claim 6, Shigematsu teaches the method of processing a workpiece according to claim 1, but is silent with regards to a method wherein, in a case in which a chip fly-off has been detected from an outer edge of the workpiece in the detecting step, the warning step includes a step of proposing forming in the dividing step a dividing groove in the workpiece up to a position spaced a predetermined distance inwardly from the outer edge of the workpiece such that the dividing groove terminates short of the outer edge of the workpiece in a region where the chip fly-off has occurred
Karasaki teaches a method wherein, in a case in which a chip fly-off has been detected from an outer edge of the workpiece in the detecting step, the warning step includes a step of proposing forming in the dividing step a dividing groove in the workpiece up to a position spaced a predetermined distance inwardly from the outer edge of the workpiece such that the dividing groove terminates short of the outer edge of the workpiece in a region where the chip fly-off has occurred ([0003], “when dicing a semiconductor substrate into a plurality of element chips, processing grooves are formed in advance along portions to be diced”; the proposing of the dividing grooves would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results, before the date of effective filing, to incorporate the dividing step of Karasaki into the method of Shigematsu in order to arrive at the expected result of create a method with the known benefit of improving the dicing process by providing perforation for better dicing quality with reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigematsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagaya et al (USPGPUB 20190035684, hereinafter “Nagaya”).
Regarding Claim 7, Shigematsu teaches the method of processing a workpiece according to claim 1, but is silent with regards to a method wherein the dividing step includes a step of cutting the workpiece with a cutting blade, and in a case in which a chip fly-off has been detected from an outer edge of the workpiece in the detecting step, the warning step includes a step of proposing in the dividing step lowering a processing feed speed at which the cutting blade and the workpiece are processing-fed relatively to each other along a projected dicing line established on the workpiece in a region where the chip fly-off has occurred.
Nagaya teaches a method wherein the dividing step includes a step of cutting the workpiece with a cutting blade, and in a case in which a chip fly-off has been detected from an outer edge of the workpiece in the detecting step, the warning step includes a step of proposing in the dividing step lowering a processing feed speed at which the cutting blade and the workpiece are processing-fed relatively to each other along a projected dicing line established on the workpiece in a region where the chip fly-off has occurred ([0051], “The blade width capable of reducing the chipping amount even at the above feeding speed is preferably set to 40 μm or less. In order to further reduce the abrasion amount of the dicing blade 20, it is preferable to set the cutting direction to down cut”; the apparatus being modified so as to maintain an optimal feed-rate, as motivated by Nagaya, would be obvious in view of the cited prior art to one of ordinary skill in the art).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results, before the date of effective filing, to incorporate the feed-rate reduction of Nagaya into the method of Shigematsu in order to arrive at the expected result of decreasing the possibility of mechanical damage to the wafer (see [0051] of Nagaya) with reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US2019/0355602 (para [0081]) and US2021/0217804 (para [0076]) discloses apparatuses which detect missing chips during a dicing operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR J LASASSO whose telephone number is (703)756-5668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/V.J.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSE Y MIYOSHI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
