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 .
Status of Claims/Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending in the application. Claims 12-20 are newly presented and claim 3 is canceled in the amendment dated July 21, 2026. Prior 112(b) objections from the office action dated May 7, 2026 have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 19 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 10, and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “the second grinding unit is configured to come into contact with an entire surface of the second main surface,” and the claim also recites “a second grinding unit configured to rotate around the rotation axis and grind a second outer periphery of a second main surface” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a second surface which is a surface opposite to the first main surface,” claim 1 previously recited the limitation “a second main surface that is an opposite surface of the first main surface.” If the limitations are intended to refer to the same element, the recitation of each element should be the same. If the limitations are intended to be separate, they are currently worded in such a way as to be confusing as to if they are referring to the same element. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed the limitation in claim 10 should read “the second main surface.”
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a second surface which is a surface opposite to the first main surface,” claim 12 previously recited the limitation “a second main surface that is an opposite surface of the first main surface.” If the limitations are intended to refer to the same element, the recitation of each element should be the same. If the limitations are intended to be separate, they are currently worded in such a way as to be confusing as to if they are referring to the same element. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed the limitation in claim 19 should read “the second main surface.”
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a second surface which is a surface opposite to the first main surface,” claim 12 previously recited the limitation “a second main surface that is an opposite surface of the first main surface.” If the limitations are intended to refer to the same element, the recitation of each element should be the same. If the limitations are intended to be separate, they are currently worded in such a way as to be confusing as to if they are referring to the same element. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed the limitation in claim 20 should read “the second main surface.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. KR 20040065587 A (herein Cho) in view of Gurusamy et al. US20220324081 A1 (herein Gurusamy).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cho Figure 6, annotated
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (abstract) comprising a second grinding unit (110) configured to rotate around a rotation axis and grinds a second main surface (See Annotated Figure) of a wafer (W) that is the opposite surface of the first main surface (See Annotated Figure) in contact with the second main surface (See Annotated Figure).
Cho does not teach the grinding units configured to grind a first or second outer periphery.
PNG
media_image2.png
533
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gurusamy Figure 3, annotated
However, in a related device, Gurusamy teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (abstract) comprising: a first main surface holding unit (210) configured to come into contact with a center portion of a first main surface (See Annotated Figure) of a wafer (10) in plan view and holds the wafer (10); and a first grinding unit (230) configured to rotate about a rotation axis (250) that overlaps a center of the wafer (10) in plan view and extends in a first direction perpendicular to the first main surface (See Annotated Figure), and configured to grind a first outer periphery (See Annotated Figure) that is a first region surrounding the center portion of the first main surface (See Annotated Figure) in contact with the first outer periphery (See Annotated Figure) of the first main surface (See Annotated Figure). Gurusamy further teaches that this allows for touching up under-polished annular regions, especially near the edge of a substrate (para 20, ln 47-10). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to filing date of instant application, modify the dual sided polishing mechanism of Cho to utilize the annular grinding configuration of Gurusamy instead of the full surface polishing mechanism of Cho to advantageously allow touching up under-polished annular regions, especially near the edge of a substrate, during a double sided polishing process (para 20, ln 47-10). Such a combination would require the incorporating the first main surface holding unit of Gurusamy. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cho and Gurusamy teaches the first grinding unit (230 of Gurusamy) has a first cutout portion (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy) which is a cutout region in a second center in plan view, and the first main surface holding unit (210 of Gurusamy) is arranged to overlap with the first cutout portion (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy) in plan view.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cho and Gurusamy teaches the second grinding unit (110 of Cho) and a grinding unit with a second cutout portion (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy), which is a second cutout region in a second center in plan view (as combined, the second grinding unit is a duplication of the first grinding unit, thus both would have the cutout portion).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cho and Gurusamy as combined teaches the second grinding unit (110 of Cho) is configured to come into contact with an entire surface of the second main surface (as combined the second grinding unit directly contacts the second outer periphery of the second main surface and indirectly contacts the remainder of the second main surface through the second outer periphery).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cho and Gurusamy teaches a second rotation direction of the second grinding unit (110 of Cho) is a reversed direction of a first rotation direction of the first grinding unit (120 of Cho) (English Translation, pg. 6, ln 24-26).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Cho and Gurusamy teaches the first main surface holding unit (210 of Gurusamy) is configured to hold the wafer (10 of Gurusamy) so that the first main surface (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy) faces downward in vertical direction with respect to a second surface (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy) which is a surface opposite to the first main surface (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Cho and Gurusamy teaches an end face holding unit (220 of Gurusamy) that holds the wafer (10 of Gurusamy) in contact with an end surface (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy) of the wafer (10 of Gurusamy). Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurusamy et al. US20220324081 A1 (herein Gurusamy) in view of Cho et al. KR 20040065587 A (herein Cho) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mizushima US 20080026185 A1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cho and Gurusamy teaches the limitations of claim 3 as claimed.
The combination of Cho and Gurusamy does not teach the second grinding unit having a region that is closer to the second main surface in a direction in which the rotation axis extends.
PNG
media_image3.png
389
429
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Mizushima Figure 2, annotated
However, in a related device, Mizushima teaches a grinding unit (2) which has a region which is closer to a second main surface (See Annotated Figure) in a direction in which the rotation axis extends as a distance from the rotation axis increases in plan view (See Figure 2). Mizushima further teaches that this system advantageously allows for the mechanism to remove material on both the second main surface and a chamfered edge simultaneously to prevent particles attaching to an oxide layer on the surfaces (para 14 ln 5-6; para 15, ln 1-4). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to filing date of instant application, apply the angled grinding surface of Mizushima to the upper grinding surface of the combination of Cho and Gurusamy to advantageously allow for the mechanism to remove material on both the second main surface and a chamfered edge simultaneously to prevent particles attaching to an oxide layer on the surfaces (para 14 ln 5-6; para 15, ln 1-4). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Cho and Gurusamy teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed. The combination of Cho and Gurusamy does not teach the first main surface holding unit adsorbing the wafer via vacuum.
However, in a related device, Mizushima teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (abstract), wherein a main surface holding unit (6) is configured to absorb the first main surface (See Annotated Figure) by vacuum suction (para 66, ln 1-3) to hold the wafer (7). This mechanism advantageously allows the apparatus to hold the wafer in place for processing (para 66, ln 7-10). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to filing date of instant application, would have been able to combine the holding surface of Gurusamy with the vacuum adsorbing mechanism of Mizushima to advantageously allows the apparatus to hold the wafer in place for processing (para 66, ln 7-10). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. KR 20040065587 A (herein Cho) in view of Gurusamy et al. US20220324081 A1 (herein Gurusamy) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tanaka JP 6885492 B1.
In regard to claim 8, the combination of Cho and Gurusamy teaches the limitations of claim 3 as claimed.
The combination of Cho and Gurusamy does not teach either of the rotation rates of the two grinding units being greater than the other.
PNG
media_image4.png
284
484
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Tanaka Figure 1
However, in a related device, Tanaka teaches a second rotation rate per unit time of a second grinding unit (1) is greater than a first rotation rate per unit time of a first grinding unit (2) (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 5). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Thus, a person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to filing date of instant application, combine the rotation rates of Tanaka with the mechanism of the combination of Cho and Gurusamy.
Claim(s) 12- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. KR 20040065587 A (herein Cho) in view of Gurusamy et al. US20220324081 A1 (herein Gurusamy) and Mizushima US 20080026185 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Cho teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (abstract) comprising a second grinding unit (110) configured to rotate around a rotation axis and grinds a second main surface (See Annotated Figure) of a wafer (W) that is the opposite surface of the first main surface (See Annotated Figure) in contact with the second main surface (See Annotated Figure).
Cho does not teach the grinding units configured to grind a first or second outer periphery.
However, in a related device, Gurusamy teaches a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (abstract) comprising: a first main surface holding unit (210) configured to come into contact with a center portion of a first main surface (See Annotated Figure) of a wafer (10) in plan view and holds the wafer (10); and a first grinding unit (230) configured to rotate about a rotation axis (250) that overlaps a center of the wafer (10) in plan view and extends in a first direction perpendicular to the first main surface (See Annotated Figure), and configured to grind a first outer periphery (See Annotated Figure) that is a first region surrounding the center portion of the first main surface (See Annotated Figure) in contact with the first outer periphery (See Annotated Figure) of the first main surface (See Annotated Figure). Gurusamy further teaches that this allows for touching up under-polished annular regions, especially near the edge of a substrate (para 20, ln 47-10). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to filing date of instant application, modify the dual sided polishing mechanism of Cho to utilize the annular grinding configuration of Gurusamy instead of the full surface polishing mechanism of Cho to advantageously allow touching up under-polished annular regions, especially near the edge of a substrate, during a double sided polishing process (para 20, ln 47-10). Such a combination would require the incorporating the first main surface holding unit of Gurusamy. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The combination of Cho and Gurusamy does not teach the second grinding unit having a region that is closer to the second main surface in a direction in which the rotation axis extends.
However, in a related device, Mizushima teaches a grinding unit (2) which has a region which is closer to a second main surface (See Annotated Figure) in a direction in which the rotation axis extends as a distance from the rotation axis increases in plan view (See Figure 2). Mizushima further teaches that this system advantageously allows for the mechanism to remove material on both the second main surface and a chamfered edge simultaneously to prevent particles attaching to an oxide layer on the surfaces (para 14 ln 5-6; para 15, ln 1-4). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to filing date of instant application, apply the angled grinding surface of Mizushima to the upper grinding surface of the combination of Cho and Gurusamy to advantageously allow for the mechanism to remove material on both the second main surface and a chamfered edge simultaneously to prevent particles attaching to an oxide layer on the surfaces (para 14 ln 5-6; para 15, ln 1-4). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Cho, Gurusamy, and Mizushima teaches the first grinding unit (230 of Gurusamy) has a first cutout portion (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy) which is a cutout region in a second center in plan view, and the first main surface holding unit (210 of Gurusamy) is arranged to overlap with the first cutout portion (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy) in plan view.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Cho, Gurusamy, and Mizushima teaches the second grinding unit (2a of Mizushima) and a grinding unit with a cutout portion (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy), which is a cutout region in a second center in plan view (as combined, the second grinding unit is the grinding unit of Mizushima, which has a cutout portion between 4a and 5 (note that 5 is specifically said to be filled, and that similar space in other embodiments are cutout portions)).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Cho, Gurusamy, and Mizushima as combined teaches the second grinding unit (2a of Mizushima) is configured to come into contact with an entire surface of the second main surface (as combined the second grinding unit directly contacts the second outer periphery of the second main surface and indirectly contacts the remainder of the second main surface through the second outer periphery).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Cho, Gurusamy, and Mizushima teaches a second rotation direction of the second grinding unit (110 of Cho) is a reversed direction of a first rotation direction of the first grinding unit (120 of Cho) (English Translation, pg. 6, ln 24-26 of Cho).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Cho, Gurusamy, and Mizushima teaches the first main surface holding unit (210 of Gurusamy) is configured to absorb the first main surface (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy) by vacuum suction (para 66, ln 1-3 of Mizushima) to hold the wafer (W of Cho).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Cho, Gurusamy, and Mizushima teaches the first main surface holding unit (210 of Gurusamy) is configured to hold the wafer (10 of Gurusamy) so that the first main surface (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy) faces downward in vertical direction with respect to a second surface (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy) which is a surface opposite to the first main surface (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Cho, Gurusamy, and Mizushima teaches the first main surface holding unit (210 of Gurusamy) is configured to hold the wafer (10 of Gurusamy) so that the first main surface (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy) faces downward in vertical direction with respect to a second surface (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy) which is a surface opposite to the first main surface (See Annotated Figure of Gurusamy).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. KR 20040065587 A (herein Cho) in view of Gurusamy et al. US20220324081 A1 (herein Gurusamy) and Mizushima US 20080026185 A1 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Tanaka JP 6885492 B1.
In regard to claim 8, the combination of Cho, Gurusamy, and Mizushima teaches the limitations of claim 3 as claimed.
The combination of Cho, Gurusamy, and Mizushima does not teach either of the rotation rates of the two grinding units being greater than the other.
However, in a related device, Tanaka teaches a second rotation rate per unit time of a second grinding unit (1) is greater than a first rotation rate per unit time of a first grinding unit (2) (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 5). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Thus, a person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to filing date of instant application, combine the rotation rates of Tanaka with the mechanism of the combination of Cho, Gurusamy, and Mizushima.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the reasoning to combine Gurusamy with Cho is improper as Cho supposedly teaches away from the previously presented application. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection as presented above does not rely on the challenged reasoning to combine.
Applicant has further argued that claims should be allowable in light of the interview held between Applicant and examiner with interview summary dated July 10, 2026. Applicant holds that “Examiner Hay agreed during the interview that neither of the applied references, individually or in combination, seems to disclose the above-discussed features now recited in amended claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Applicant misunderstands the position of the Examiner. The Examiner did not concur that the then proposed amendment to claim 1 would overcome the applied references, individually or in combination, rather that then proposed amendment to claim 1 would overcome the previous rejection of record for claim 1 which included only one reference individually (see interview summary dated July 10, 2026). Examiner maintains agreement that currently amended claim 1 does overcome the prior rejection of record and submits new grounds of rejection for amended claim 1 as provided above.
Applicant further argues that claims 12-20 should be allowable in light of the interview held between Applicant and examiner with interview summary dated July 10, 2026. Applicant holds that “Examiner point[ed] out during the interview that none of the reference teaches or suggests the features… as recited in new claim 12.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Applicant misunderstands the position of the Examiner. The Examiner did not concur that the then proposed amendment to claim 1 (now new claim 12) was taught by none of the previously applied references, rather the reference used in the previous rejection of record for claim 1 did not teach amended subject matter individually (see interview summary dated July 10, 2026). Examiner maintains agreement that claim 12 is not taught by the previously presented reference individually and presents new grounds for rejection as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
An US 20110294406 A1 as it pertains to double sided edge grinding of wafers.
Nakamura et al. US 6933234 B2 as it pertains to double sided edge grinding of wafers.
Lai et al. US 6267649 B1 as it pertains to double sided edge grinding of wafers.
Mouri et al. KR 20190070874 A as it pertains to double sided operations on wafers.
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 GRANT D HAY whose telephone number is (571)272-9510. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-3:30pm 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/G.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights