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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1-14-2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “11. The method for manufacturing an electronic device according to claim 6, wherein the number of the at least one first modification line is greater than the number of the at least one second modification line.” should read: “11. The method for manufacturing an electronic device according to claim 6, wherein the number of the at least one first modification lines is greater than the number of the at least one second modification lines.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “stretchable member”, in claim 1.
With regard to the term “stretchable member”,
first, the term “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “stretchable”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “stretchable” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the stretchable member.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-3 and 12-13 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the second substrate side". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because a second substrate side has not been previously delimited in the claim it is unclear if this refers to some other previously claimed structure, or whether this is a newly introduced structure. If this is newly introduced structure than the limitation should be preceded by the pronoun “a” instead of “the”.
The limitations of Claim 12 and Claim 13 (respectively), reading: “a dicing step of dividing the second substrate by blade dicing or laser ablation dicing, wherein the dividing step is performed after the dicing step” is indefinite. Claim 1 requires “a first modification line formation step of forming at least one first modification line by irradiating the first substrate with a laser beam”. Turning to the specification at par. 0035, it is disclosed that
“Two pad areas 15 are provided so as to face two adjacent sides of four peripheral sides of circuit area 13 of first substrate 2. In this embodiment, second substrate 3 is divided along dicing lines 28 by blade dicing or laser ablation dicing (dicing step). As seen a plan view from the Z-direction, one or more (in this embodiment, more than one) first modification lines 22 and one or more (in this embodiment, more than one) dicing lines 28 are formed at mutually different positions.
[0036] Blade dicing is performed in a state in which stacked substrate 16 is placed on a support stand (not shown). Therefore, the stretchable member attachment step may be performed after the dicing step, followed by the first modification line formation step and dividing step. That is, the dividing step may be performed after the dicing step”.
From this disclosure it is not clear how the “first modification line formation step” is different than the “dicing step” since both appear to include the same function of using a laser ablation to cut lines into the substrate.
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.
Claims 1, 6 and, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 20240145310, Teragaki (having priority date 10-31-2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Teragaki discloses a method for manufacturing an electronic device (par. 0039) comprising:
a stretchable member attachment step of attaching a stretchable member (24) to a first substrate (20) on which a second substrate (21) is stacked;
a first modification line formation step of forming at least one first modification line (fig 7D) by irradiating the first substrate with a laser beam (fig 7D, and par. 0052-0054); and
a dividing step of stretching the stretchable member to divide the first substrate along the at least one first modification line (par 0061).
Regarding Claim 6, in Teragaki the method for manufacturing an electronic device according to claim 1, further comprises a second modification line formation step of forming at least one second modification line by irradiating the second substrate (21, fig 7B) with a laser beam 40 (fig 7A)(fig 7B), wherein, in the dividing step, the second substrate is divided along the at least one second modification line (par. 0044).
Regarding Claim 11, in Teragaki the method for manufacturing an electronic device according to claim 6, includes wherein the number of the at least one first modification line (fig 7D, four lines being formed) is greater than the number of the at least one second modification line (3) (fig 7A, where two lines are formed).
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 20230154890 Yasukawa (having priority date 11-16-2021).
Regarding Claim 1, Yasukawa discloses a method for manufacturing an electronic device (par. 0064) comprising:
a stretchable member attachment step of attaching a stretchable member (17) to a first substrate (42) on which a second substrate (41) is stacked (fig. 4);
a first modification line formation step of forming at least one first modification line (27) by irradiating the first substrate with a laser beam (see par. 0042); and
a dividing step of stretching the stretchable member to divide the first substrate along the at least one first modification line (par 0048, describing the separation step on wafer of fig. 4, fig 2A and 2B, showing the separation step applied to a prior art wafer).
Regarding Claim 2, in Yasukawa: in the first modification line formation step, the at least one first modification line is formed by irradiating the first substrate (42) with the laser beam (18) from the second substrate side (41, see fig 4).
Regarding Claim 3, in Yasukawa: in the first modification line formation step, the at least one first modification line is formed by irradiating the first substrate (42) with the laser beam (40) transmitted through the second substrate (41) (fig. 4, par 0043 and see par 0044).
Regarding Claim 5, in Yasukawa the method for manufacturing an electronic device according to claim 1, includes the first substrate having a pad area (fig 8, 71) on a surface that faces the second substrate (fig 8).
Regarding Claim 6, in Yasukawa the method for manufacturing an electronic device according to claim 1, further comprises a second modification line formation step of forming at least one second modification line by irradiating the second substrate with a laser beam, wherein, in the dividing step, the second substrate is divided along the at least one second modification line (since par 0057 discloses that multiple cracks 27 are formed).
Regarding Claim 8, in Yasukawa the method for manufacturing an electronic device according to claim 6, also has wherein the second substrate 42 has a pad area 43b on a surface that faces the first substrate 41 (fig 8).
Regarding Claim9, in Yasukawa, the method for manufacturing an electronic device according to claim 6, also includes: wherein in a plan view from a direction in which the first substrate and the second substrate are stacked, the at least one first modification line and the at least one second modification line are formed at different positions from each other (fig 3).
Regarding Claim 10, in Yasukawa the method for manufacturing an electronic device according to claim 9, includes wherein: in the dividing step, a portion of the first substrate between one of the at least one first modification line and one of the at least one second modification line in the plan view becomes a part of one chip; and a portion of the second substrate between the one first modification line and the one second modification line in the plan view becomes a part of another chip (par 0063).
Regarding Claim 12, in Yasukawa the method for manufacturing an electronic device according to claim 1, further comprises a dicing step of dividing the second substrate by laser ablation dicing, wherein the dividing step is performed after the dicing step (since the first modification line forming step in claim 1 includes laser dicing).
Regarding Claim 13, in Yasukawa the said method for manufacturing an electronic device according to claim 1, further comprises a dicing step of dividing the second substrate along at least one dicing line by laser ablation dicing (since the first modification line forming step in claim 1 includes laser dicing ) wherein: in a plan view from a direction in which the first substrate and the second substrate are stacked, the at least one first modification line and the at least one dicing line are formed at different positions from each other (fig 7C-D)); and in the dividing step, a portion of the first substrate between one of the at least one first modification line and one of the at least one dicing line in the plan view becomes a part of one chip; and a portion of the second substrate between the one first modification line and the one dicing line in the plan view becomes a part of another chip (par 0063).
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 of this title, 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 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teragaki as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20090243044, Tanaka.
Regarding Claims 4 and 7, Teragaki includes: the first substrate has a first functional part formation area (where the first lines are formed), the second substrate has a second functional part formation area (where second lines are formed);
Teragaki lacks: in a plan view from a direction in which the first substrate and the second substrate are stacked, a length the first functional part formation area occupies in one direction perpendicular to the first modification line is greater than a length the second functional part formation area occupies in the one direction.
Tanaka discloses a chip formation method where substrate parts are diced to form chips, in the same field of endeavor as the chip formation method where substrate parts are diced to form chips, of the present invention, and includes a first portion of the chip having a first width, W4 and a second portion having a second width W3, which widths are created by removing portions of the substrate (see par 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teragaki by having the method including: in a plan view from a direction in which the first substrate and the second substrate are stacked, a length the first functional part formation area occupies in one direction perpendicular to the first modification line is greater than a length the second functional part formation area occupies in the one direction in order to form a chip with portions having differing widths as shown to be typical via Tanaka.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 20250157823 20200098637 20040080032 20160192500 20190115286 9165832 20240145310 8609512 20200335614 20190148232 and 20090311848 disclose substrate cutting processes and thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on 571-272-4502. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 04/02/2026
Prosecution Insights