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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
2. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima (JP 2014/003198, translation provided).
3. Regarding claim 1, Oshima discloses a processing tool 1 that is configured to:
remove a chamfer (chamfered portion 11e, Figure 1) of a wafer (wafer 11, Figure 1) that is formed on its front surface (surface 11a, Figure 1) with a central region (central region A, Figure 1) and a peripheral surplus region (peripheral surplus area 19, Figure 1) surrounding the central region (see Figure 1, wherein peripheral surplus area 19 surrounds central region A of wafer 11),
the chamfer being formed in a periphery of the peripheral surplus region (see Figure 1, wherein “chamfered portion 11e is formed on the outer peripheral portion of the wafer 11”, paragraph [0018]),
the processing tool comprising:
an annular grinding grindstone (cutting blade 16, Figure 6) having in its center an opening into which a spindle (spindle 14) is inserted (“cutting blade 16 that is attached to the tip of the spindle 14”, wherein it is understood by someone of ordinary skill in the art that cutting blade 16 must have a center hole to couple to the spindle and spin Axis A, Figure 6, paragraph [0020]) and having a first side(rough cutting blade 16a, Figure 6) surface and a second side surface (finish cutting blade 16b, Figure 6);
and a polishing grindstone formed on at least one of the first side surface or the second side surface (finish cutting blade 16b is formed second side surface, Figure 6),
wherein the processing tool is formed in such a manner as to be capable of satisfying both the following conditions (1) and (2):
H + h > L … (wherein “cutting blade 16 has a thickness that is at least twice that of the outer peripheral annular removal region 23 having a predetermined width W1”, paragraph [0021]). Thickness of cutting blade 16 (H + h) is twice of width W1, therefore length of rough cutting blade and finish cutting blade combined will always be greater than width W1.
and wherein L is a length in a radial direction from a peripheral end of the chamfer to be removed (“radial width W1 from the outer periphery of the wafer 11 to be cut and removed”, paragraph [0019], Figure 2),
H is a width of the grinding grindstone (H, Figure 4),
and h is a width of the polishing grindstone (h, Figure 4).
However, Oshima does not explicitly disclose wherein:
L/3 > h > L/100 …
Examiner indicates both relationships rely on dimensions of a workpiece that has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. With respect to relationship (2), the device of Oshima would be capable of satisfying the required condition depending on the particular dimensions of the workpiece.
Additionally, there is no evidence of record that establishes that having the width h be smaller than L/3 and greater than L/100 results in a difference in function of the cutting blade of Oshima. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would configure the width of the finish cutting blade relative to the radial width W1 to appropriately cut and smooth the chamfer at the periphery of the wafer. Furthermore, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed width h conditions resolve any stated problem, such that it produces insignificant results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to configure Oshima’s finish cutting blade width to fall within the range of L/3 and L/100 depending on the particular dimensions of the workpiece as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Oshima)
PNG
media_image2.png
654
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 (Oshima)
PNG
media_image3.png
678
779
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 (Oshima)
4. Regarding claim 4, Oshima discloses the processing tool of claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
the wafer (wafer 11) is a semiconductor wafer (figure description describe wafer as a semiconductor, such as “there is shown a surface side perspective view of a semiconductor wafer”, paragraph 16) that includes, in a central region (center region A, Figure 1), a device region (device area 17) in which a plurality of devices (device 15) are partitioned by a plurality of intersecting streets (“a plurality of planned dividing lines (streets) 13 are formed in a lattice on the surface 11a”, paragraph [0017], Figure 1).
5. Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima (JP 2014/003198, translation provided) in view of Hashii (US 2010/0009155).
6. Regarding claim 2, Oshima discloses the processing tool of claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
wherein a grain diameter of diamond abrasive grains constituting the polishing grindstone is selected according to a material of the wafer (“wafer is subjected to edge trimming processing with cutting blade, … cutting force having characteristics such as coarse grain size and/or high concentration of abrasive grains”, paragraph [0007]).
Oshima further discloses that wherein “the finish cutting blade 16b is composed of any of the abrasive particles having a smaller particle size” (paragraph [0022]). Therefore, grain diameter of finish cutting blade 16b is smaller than grain diameter of rough cutting blade 16a. However, Oshima does not explicitly disclose wherein:
a grain diameter of diamond abrasive grains constituting the grinding grindstone is selected in a range of 1.5 to 5 times the grain diameter of the diamond abrasive grains constituting the polishing grindstone.
Hashii is also concerned with the abrading of a semiconductor wafer through polishing apparatus comprising of both rough abrasive particles and finish abrasive particles. Furthermore, Hashii further discloses wherein the upper range of the of the grain diameter of diamond abrasive grains constituting the grinding grindstone (rough polishing abrasives) is 2.0 micrometers (paragraph [0046]), and the upper range of the grain diameter of the diamond abrasive grains constituting the polishing grindstone (finish polishing abrasives) is 0.5 micrometers (paragraph [0048]). Therefore, the ratio between the grain diameter of the rough polishing abrasive to grain diameter of the finish polishing abrasive is 4, which falls within the range as required by the claim.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to configure the ratio of the abrasive grain diameter between the rough cutting blade and the finish cutting blade of Oshima to the ratio as taught by Hashii to provide effective rough and fine grinding. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to implement the ratio of the grain diameters between the two sides of the grindstone abrasives to appropriately trim and smooth a semiconductor wafer.
Additionally, there is no evidence of record that establishes that having the grain diameter of the grinding grindstone be 1.5 to 5 times the grain diameter of the diamond abrasive grains constituting the polishing grindstone results in a difference in function of the processing device of Oshima. Further a person having ordinary skill in the art would modify the grain diameters of the rough cutting blade and finish cutting blade to the correct proportions to appropriately cut and smooth the chamfer at the periphery of the wafer. Furthermore, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range from 1.5 to 5 resolves any stated problem, such that it produces insignificant results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Oshima’s grain diameters of the rough cutting blade and the finish cutting blade in consideration to the wafer as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
7. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima (JP 2014/003198, translation provided) in view of Hashii (US 2010/0009155) and further in view of Sekiya (2019/0054596).
8. Regarding claim 3, Oshima discloses the processing tool device of claim 2, and further discloses wherein
a bonding material constituting the polishing grindstone (finish cutting blade 16b) and the grinding grindstone (rough cutting blade 16a) is selected from a group consisting of resin bond (“finish cutting blade 16b is composed of a metal resin blade”, paragraph [0023]), and a metal bond (rough cutting blade 16a is composed of an electroforming blade, a metal bond blade or the like”, paragraph [0023]).
However, Oshima does not disclose a vitrified bond.
Sekiya is also concerned with an annular cutting blade coupled to a spindle and further teaches a vitrified bond, wherein “the bond for configuring the cutting blade 1, resin bond, metal bond, vitrified bond or electroformed bond is used”, paragraph [0036], Figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting blade of Oshima of to be also be made of a vitrified bond in addition to resin bonds and metal bonds. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize vitrified bonds are common in the art for producing grindstones, as its bonding material holds the abrasive grains together to properly be used such as grinding of semiconductor wafers. Furthermore, it vitrified bonds are produced wherein “abrasive grains and so forth are mixed to mold a blade main body”, paragraph [0046].
PNG
media_image4.png
514
1069
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 (Sekiya)
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miyazaki (2009/0042363) discloses a workpiece apparatus that comprises of a grindstone coupled to a rotating shaft to trim semiconductor wafers around the periphery.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEGO J NG whose telephone number is (571)-270-0802. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Fri 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571)-272-8548. 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.
/D.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights