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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the 112(f) interpretation should be withdrawn because “the term mounter has a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function”. Applicant then compares the term “mounter” with other terms, including “grinder”, “coater”, “sample holder”, and so forth on pages 7-8 of the Arguments. Examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments.
Claims 1 and 14 recite a mounter configured to attach a ring to the wafer, and remove a protection film from the wafer. A mounter is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning, nor is there structure recited within the claims and specification capable of performing the claimed functions, including attaching a ring and removing a protection film. Thus, the invocation and subsequent 112 rejections are maintained herein.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rail limitations of claim 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner has provided an updated grounds of rejection, as necessitated by amendment. This action is made final herein.
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:
a mounter configured to attach a ring to the wafer, and remove a protection film from the wafer in claims 1 and 14.
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.
Please also refer to the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections provided below regarding the claim limitations identified above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
a mounter configured to attach a ring to the wafer, and remove a protection film from the wafer in claims 1 and 14.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. When seeking to ascertain what structure is disclosed by Applicant for performing the claimed function, Examiner reflected on at least [0005], [0024-0025], [0032]. However, there is no disclosure of a device capable of performing attaching a ring or removing a protection film. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any claim listed as rejected above but not specifically addressed above has inherited the rejection of a claim specifically addressed above due to dependency therefrom.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, as pointed out in the 112(b) rejection provided above, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Thus, the claims are also rejected under 112(a), as it has not been reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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(s) 1-4, 6, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ametani (US 2007/0187036) in view of Yamazaki (JP 2003077871).
Regarding claim 1, Ametani discloses an apparatus for processing a wafer (see wafer 20 and abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a grinder configured to grind a backside of the wafer (back grinder 1, see [0042] and Figure 1; see also [0052]);
a mounter configured to attach a ring to the wafer, and remove a protection film from the wafer (see surface peeling unit 50, [0046]; see mount frame 36, which is supplied one by one from the mount unit 15 for a wafer, see [0055] and [0058]; see wafer 20 having protective film 110, [0052]; see also [0068]); and
a dock configured to dock the mounter with the grinder (see Figures 1 and 2, as well as rails 91, 92, tables 71 and 72, unit 5 in between the grinder 1 and the adjacent device).
However, Ametani does not explicitly teach wherein, when the grinder and the mounter are docked by the dock, the grinder and mounter are directly in contact. Ametani teaches that the wafer processing apparatus can be configured such that the apparatus (10) includes the back grinder (1) and unit (5).
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Yamazaki (JP 2003077871) teaches of a wafer grinding system comprising elements which are configured to be docked with one another, i.e. a dock configured to dock two elements with one another, wherein when the elements are docked by a dock, the elements are directly in contact (see surface grinding machine 10, comprising units 30 and 40, wherein each unit 30, 40 is provided with moving and retracting means 50, 60; see fixing device 54, positioning device 53, jack 53, and carriage 51 in [0029-0035] and Figures 6-10; see also paragraphs [0036-0040] regarding the moving and retracting means 60, i.e. Yamazaki teaches several configurations of mounting and dismounting units from one another such that they are in contact when docked).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ametani to reflect the specific suggestion of Ametani to incorporate the stations into a singular apparatus, and to incorporate the teachings of Yamazaki such that the units can be disassembled from one other, i.e. in and out of contact with each other. One would be motivated to do so because the modified invention would create a compact and space-saving configuration, thus reducing floor installation space and the installation cost of a wafer manufacturing room, while also permitting easy access during maintenance of the device (Yamazaki: [0055], [0052], [0028], [0015], [0005], [0009]).
Regarding claim 2, Ametani in view of Yamazaki teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Ametani further teaches wherein the dock comprises:
a rail configured to extend from the grinder (Yamazaki: please see Figure 6; wherein when mounted, the lower frame of the unit 30 is configured to extend from the grinder apparatus);
a transfer block configured to be connected with the rail and move on the rail, the transfer block being configured to be fixed to the mounter (wherein the carriage 51 is configured to be connected with the lower frame of the unit 30 and move on the frame of unit 30; wherein in the context of the modified embodiment, the element being attached/removed is the mounting device of Ametani, and thus the carriage 51 is configured to be fixed to the mounting device; see also Yamazaki [0029-0032], wherein [0031-0031] describes the connection and movement between the elements 30 and 51); and
an actuator configured to move the transfer block on the rail (jack device 52; wherein the jack device is configured to raise the carriage while the carriage 51 is connected with the lower surface of the unit 30 and vertically move on the lower frame portion of unit 30; see Figure 6 and [0029-0033]).
Regarding claim 3, Ametani in view of Yamazaki teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Ametani further teaches wherein the rail is configured to be connected with an upper surface of the grinder and an upper surface of the mounter (Yamazaki: wherein the lower frame of unit 30 is configured to be indirectly connected with the upper surface of the grinder and mounting device of Ametani when installed; see also Figure 7 of Yamazaki and [0030-0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Ametani in view of Yamazaki teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Ametani further teaches wherein the dock comprises:
a locking cylinder configured to be positioned at the grinder (Yamazaki: see bolts configured to be inserted into mounting means 54b); and
a locking bracket configured to be positioned at the mounter and locked with the locking cylinder (Yamazaki: see left and right support members 54a, as well as [0029-0031] ).
Regarding claim 6, Ametani in view of Yamazaki teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Ametani further teaches comprising a transfer robot configured to transfer the wafer from the grinder to the mounter (Ametani: see robot hand disclosed in [0052] and [0055], wherein the robot hand supplies the wafer from the back grinder 1 to the unit 5, then from unit 5 to the area of unit 30).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Ametani in view of Yamazaki teaches the claimed invention as applied above. While modified Ametani shows the grinder element (1) in Figure 1, Ametani is silent regarding a transporting device prior to grinding and an unloading device, and thus does not explicitly teach a loading robot configured to load the wafer into the grinder (claim 12); and an unloading robot configured to unload the wafer from the mounter (claim 13; which is a separate scope from claim 12).
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Yamazaki further teaches a loading robot configured to load the wafer into the grinder; and an unloading robot configured to unload the wafer from the mounter (see robot 20; see [0023-0024]; wherein robot 20 loads and unloads the wafer, [0050]; see also [0028], [0046], [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the robot, as taught by Yamazaki, into the invention of modified Ametani. Ametani intimates and suggests the use of robotic hands, see at least [0052] and [0055], but does not provide the robotic hands disposed as claimed. One would be motivated to provide a loading and unloading robot, as taught by Yamazaki, in order to 1) provide a mode of transportation to the grinder and an unloading mode of transportation from the device in a manner already suggested by Ametani, and 2) to incorporate robotic devices which are capable of performing at a continuous rate in comparison with user loading and unloading, i.e. automating a manual operation. This modification would be recognized as using a known structure, i.e. a robotic transporting device already suggested by Ametani, into a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ametani (US 2007/0187036) in view of Yamazaki (JP 2003077871), and in further view of Gilbert (US 3,898,768).
Regarding claim 5, Ametani in view of Yamazaki teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Ametani further teaches wherein the dock comprises a plurality of casters configured to be positioned on a lower surface of the mounter (see castors 18, Figure 2; see also casters discloses by Yamazaki in [0029-0032]).
However, modified Ametani does not explicitly teach that casters (18) are air casters.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices for processing a surface of a workpiece, Gilbert teaches of a plurality of air casters (see air casters 67, Figures 6 and 7, as well as Col. 5, lines 7-18 and 36-40 and 50-56; Col. 7, lines 36-53 and 58-66).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Gilbert, i.e. the air caster structures, into the invention of modified Ametani. Ametani describes, inter alia, casters (18) in combination with stoppers (19); see [0044] and Figure 2. The casters (18) are provided to move the wafer processing apparatus where desired, and stoppers (19) fix the location of the apparatus. Similarly, the casters (67) of Gilbert are provided to immobilize/mobilize the device, see at least Col. 7, lines 30-53 and Figures 5-7. One would be motivated to modify the invention of modified Ametani so that a user has additional adjustable control of the air casters via a control panel, see Col. 5, lines 7-40, thus providing a more precise adjustment structure than the structure provided by modified Ametani.
However, Ametani does not explicitly teach that casters (18) are air casters.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices for processing a surface of a workpiece, Gilbert teaches of a plurality of air casters (see air casters 67, Figures 6 and 7, as well as Col. 5, lines 7-18 and 36-40 and 50-56; Col. 7, lines 36-53 and 58-66).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Gilbert, i.e. the air caster structures, into the invention of Ametani. Ametani describes, inter alia, casters (18) in combination with stoppers (19); see [0044] and Figure 2. The casters (18) are provided to move the wafer processing apparatus where desired, and stoppers (19) fix the location of the apparatus. Similarly, the casters (67) of Gilbert are provided to immobilize/mobilize the device, see at least Col. 7, lines 30-53 and Figures 5-7. One would be motivated to modify the invention of Ametani so that a user has additional adjustable control of the air casters via a control panel, see Col. 5, lines 7-40, thus providing a more precise adjustment structure than the structure provided by Ametani.
Regarding claim 14, the scope of claim 14 reflects a combination of subject matter recited in claims 1, 2, 4-6, and additionally recited subject matter which will be addressed below. In an effort to reduce redundancy, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant to the above combination and motivation statements. Claim 14 is rejected over Ametani in view of Yamazaki and Gilbert. Ametani in view of Yamazaki and Gilbert teaches an apparatus for processing a wafer (Ametani: see wafer 20 and abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a grinder configured to grind a backside of the wafer (Ametani: back grinder 1, see [0042] and Figure 1; see also [0052]);
a mounter configured to attach a ring to the wafer, and remove a protection film from the wafer (Ametani: see surface peeling unit 50, [0046]; see mount frame 36, which is supplied one by one from the mount unit 15 for a wafer, see [0055] and [0058]; see wafer 20 having protective film 110, [0052]; see also [0068]);
a transfer robot configured to transfer the wafer from the grinder to the mounter (Ametani: see robot hand disclosed in [0052] and [0055], wherein the robot hand supplies the wafer from the back grinder 1 to the unit 5, then from unit 5 to the area of unit 30); and
a dock configured to dock the mounter with the grinder (see Figures 1 and 2 of Ametani; please also refer to Yamazaki: unit 30 is provided with moving and retracting means and subcomponents in order to attach and mount unit 30 to the apparatus 1 which includes a grinder), wherein the dock comprises:
a rail configured to extend from the grinder to the mounter (Yamazaki: please see Figure 6; wherein when mounted, the lower frame of the unit 30 is configured to extend from the grinder apparatus to the mounting device of Ametani within the unit 30);
a transfer block configured to be connected with the rail and move on the rail, the transfer block being configured to be fixed to the mounter (Yamazaki: wherein the carriage 51 is configured to be connected with the lower frame of the unit 30 and move on the frame of unit 30; wherein in the context of the modified embodiment, the element being attached/removed is the mounting device of Ametani, and thus the carriage 51 is configured to be fixed to the mounting device; see also Yamazaki [0029-0032], wherein [0031-0031] describes the connection and movement between the elements 30 and 51);
an actuator configured to move the transfer block and the mounter on the rail to adjust a distance between the mounter and the grinder (Yamazaki: jack device 52; wherein the jack device is configured to raise the carriage while the carriage 51 is connected with the lower surface of the unit 30 and vertically move on the lower frame portion of unit 30; see Figure 6 and [0029-0033]; wherein the jack device 52 is configured to move the carriage 51 and the mounting device of Ametani located on and within unit 30, such that the carriage 51 and unit 30 can be removed from the apparatus, i.e. adjusting a distance between the mounter and grinder);
a locking cylinder configured to be positioned at the grinder (Yamazaki: see bolts configured to be inserted into mounting means 54b);
a locking bracket configured to be positioned at the mounter and locked with the locking cylinder (Yamazaki: see left and right support members 54a, as well as [0029-0031]); and
a plurality of air casters configured to be positioned on a lower surface of the mounter (Ametani: see castors 18, Figure 2; see also casters discloses by Yamazaki in [0029-0032]; see also the rejection statement of claim 5, wherein Gilbert teaches of specifically air casters 67).
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ametani (US 2007/0187036) in view of Yamazaki (JP 2003077871), and in further view of Ishii (US 2025/0242467).
Regarding claim 7, Ametani in view of Yamazaki teaches the claimed invention as applied above. While modified Ametani shows the grinder element (1) in Figure 1, modified Ametani is silent regarding the specific structure of the grinder and thus does not explicitly teach wherein the grinder comprises a plurality of grinding chambers.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Ishii (US 2025/0242467) teaches wherein the grinder comprises a plurality of grinding chambers (see treatment chambers U1 to U4, as well as Figure 1, [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a plurality of grinding chambers, as taught by Ishii, into the invention of modified Ametani. Ametani describes that the wafer can be subjected to additional processing (see [0090]), i.e. Ametani intimates alternatives, but does not describe the additional structures or steps. One would be motivated to incorporate the plurality of chambers as taught by Ishii into the invention of Ametani in order to perform additional treatments as desired, as Ishii teaches that the number and types of treating units are appropriately variable ([0045]), prior to loading the wafer into the second portion of Ametani.
Regarding claim 8, Ametani in view of Yamazaki and Ishii teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Ametani further teaches wherein the plurality of the grinding chambers are positioned in a rectangular shape (Ishii: see Figure 1 regarding chambers U2, U3, and U4; wherein Figure 1 of Ametani also shows grinder 1 in a rectangular formation, i.e. wherein the combination as applied above teaches the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 9, Ametani in view of Yamazaki and Ishii teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Ametani further teaches wherein the plurality of the grinding chambers are positioned in a radial direction (Ishii: see Figure 1 regarding chambers U2, U3, and U4; wherein Figure 1 of Ametani also shows grinder 1, i.e. wherein the combination as applied above teaches the claimed invention; wherein chambers of Ishii are positioned in a radial direction, see Figure 3 regarding the X axis which is a radial direction, and wherein two adjacent chambers such as U2 and U4 are provided along the X/radial direction, see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Ametani in view of Yamazaki teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Ametani further teaches wherein the mounter comprises:
a first chamber area (Ametani: wherein a mount frame 36 is supplied and transported to table 71, see [0055], and wherein the mount frame is attached to the wafer 20, see [0058] disclosing the wafer 36 is integrated with the mount frame 36 and handling in subsequent processes is facilitated; see also [0059], and Figures 1, 3a, 4a, 6a, 6b; see also [0056]); and
at least one second chamber area (Ametani: see surface peeling unit 50, Figure 2).
However, Ametani does not explicitly teach any type of walls, i.e. wherein there are chambers for the attaching and peeling units.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Ishii teaches of treatment chambers (see U1-U4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a chamber configuration, as taught by Ishii, into the invention of modified Ametani. One would be motivated to do so because the incorporation of walls in between processing areas provides protection for the operating units, i.e. the debris created by operation of one unit is less likely to be carried into the next chamber area, thus resulting in a longer service life for each processing unit and decreasing the amount of possible contaminants being deposited on the wafer products. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. walls forming at least some form of separation between areas thereby creating chamber spaces, to improve a similar wafer processing device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Ametani in view of Yamazaki and Ishii teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Ametani further teaches, wherein the at least one second chamber comprises a plurality of stacked chambers (Ishii: see [0045], wherein the treating units are formed in two layers in the up-down direction, i.e. stacked chambers are taught by the combination as applied above).
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ametani (US 2007/0187036) in view of Yamazaki (JP 2003077871) and Gilbert (US 3,898,768), and in further view of Ishii (US 2025/0242467).
Regarding claim 15, Ametani in view of Yamazaki and Gilbert teaches the claimed invention as applied above. While modified Ametani shows the grinder element (1) in Figure 1, modified Ametani is silent regarding the specific structure of the grinder, and thus does not explicitly teach wherein the grinder comprises a plurality of grinding chambers
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Ishii (US 2025/0242467) teaches wherein the grinder comprises a plurality of grinding chambers (see treatment chambers U1 to U4, as well as Figure 1, [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a plurality of grinding chambers, as taught by Ishii, into the invention of modified Ametani. Modified Ametani describes that the wafer can be subjected to additional processing (see [0090]), i.e. Ametani intimates alternatives, but does not describe the additional structures or steps. One would be motivated to incorporate the plurality of chambers as taught by Ishii into the invention of Ametani in order to perform additional treatments as desired, as Ishii teaches that the number and types of treating units are appropriately variable ([0045]), prior to loading the wafer into the second portion of Ametani.
Regarding claim 16, Ametani as modified by Yamazaki, Gilbert, and Ishii teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Ametani further teaches wherein the plurality of the grinding chambers are positioned in a rectangular shape (Ishii: see Figure 1 regarding chambers U2, U3, and U4; wherein Figure 1 of Ametani also shows grinder 1 in a rectangular formation, i.e. wherein the combination as applied above teaches the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 17, Ametani as modified by Yamazaki, Gilbert, and Ishii teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Ametani further teaches wherein the plurality of the grinding chambers are positioned in a radial direction (Ishii: see Figure 1 regarding chambers U2, U3, and U4; wherein Figure 1 of Ametani also shows grinder 1, i.e. wherein the combination as applied above teaches the claimed invention; wherein chambers of Ishii are positioned in a radial direction, see Figure 3 regarding the X axis which is a radial direction, and wherein two adjacent chambers such as U2 and U4 are provided along the X/radial direction, see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, Ametani in view of Yamazaki and Gilbert teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Ametani further teaches wherein the mounter comprises:
a first chamber area (Ametani: wherein a mount frame 36 is supplied and transported to table 71, see [0055], and wherein the mount frame is attached to the wafer 20, see [0058] disclosing the wafer 36 is integrated with the mount frame 36 and handling in subsequent processes is facilitated; see also [0059], and Figures 1, 3a, 4a, 6a, 6b; see also [0056]); and
at least one second chamber area (Ametani: see surface peeling unit 50, Figure 2).
However, modified Ametani does not explicitly teach any type of walls, i.e. wherein there are chambers for the attaching and peeling units.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Ishii teaches of treatment chambers (see U1-U4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a chamber configuration, as taught by Ishii, into the invention of modified Ametani. One would be motivated to do so because the incorporation of walls in between processing areas provides protection for the operating units, i.e. the debris created by operation of one unit is less likely to be carried into the next chamber area, thus resulting in a longer service life for each processing unit and decreasing the amount of possible contaminants being deposited on the wafer products. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. walls forming at least some form of separation between areas thereby creating chamber spaces, to improve a similar wafer processing device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, Ametani as modified teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Ametani further teaches, wherein the at least one peeling chamber comprises a plurality of stacked chambers (Ishii: see [0045], wherein the treating units are formed in two layers in the up-down direction, i.e. stacked chambers are taught by the combination as applied above).
Regarding claim 20, Ametani in view of Yamazaki and Gilbert teaches the claimed invention as applied above. While modified Ametani shows the grinder element (1) in Figure 1, modified Ametani is silent regarding a transporting device prior to grinding and an unloading device, and thus does not explicitly teach a loading robot configured to load the wafer into the grinder; and an unloading robot configured to unload the wafer from the mounter.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Ishii teaches a loading robot configured to load the wafer into the grinder; and an unloading robot configured to unload the wafer from the mounter (see Figures 1 and 2a-d; see robot 9, transporting robot CR, as well as [0045-0049], [0085], [0087], [0093], [0119], [0127], [0130], [0143]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated additional robots, as taught by Ishii, into the invention of modified Ametani. Ametani intimates and suggests the use of robotic hands, see at least [0052] and [0055], but does not provide the robotic hands disposed as claimed. One would be motivated to provide a loading and unloading robot, as taught by Ishii, in order to 1) provide a mode of transportation to the grinder and an unloading mode of transportation from the device in a manner already suggested by Ametani, and 2) to incorporate robotic devices which are capable of performing at a continuous rate in comparison with user loading and unloading, i.e. automating a manual operation. This modification would be recognized as using a known structure, i.e. a robotic transporting device already suggested by Ametani, into a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
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 MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights