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
Response to Applicants’ Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 08/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 13 are amended. Conforming amendments are made to Claims 8 and 16. Claims 12 and 17 are canceled without prejudice or disclaimer to any subject matter therein. Claims 8-11 and 16 remain withdrawn due to Restriction Requirement. Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 18-21 remain pending in the application.
Applicants’ arguments and Amendments, filed 05/04/2025, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims except as specifically noted below.
Applicants’ Arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5-7 in the Non-Final rejection dated 05/04/2025 have been considered persuasive and have been withdrawn. Due to the Amendments filed 08/04/2026, there are new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendments.
The Examiner will address applicable arguments.
Regarding Amended Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
While the Office acknowledges Amemiya does not disclose grit numbers, Qun does not remedy and does not identify the grit standard governing the recited numerical designations. Qun's grit labels and the recited JIS grit standard designations (JIS R 6001-2:2017) does not establish that Qun discloses "(i) a macrogrit within a range of not less than F120 and not more than F220, as defined in JIS R 6001-1:2017, or (ii) a microgrit within a range of not less than #240 and not more than #320, as defined in JIS R 6001-2:2017," for the first polishing process or "a microgrit within a range of not less than #360 and not more than #1000, as defined in JIS R 6001-2:2017," for the second polishing process” as recited in amended claim. Further, Lund does not cure the deficiencies of Amemiya and Qun.
In response to the Applicants’ argument Regarding Amended Claim1 , the Examiner replies,
Qun discloses specifically a coarse grain size (i.e. macrogrit) abrasive for the first polishing step and a medium-fine grain size (microgrit) abrasive for the second polishing step (lines 78-79, 82-83).
Qun discloses the claimed invention except for the exact specific coarse and fine grain side relative to the JIS grit standard designations (JIS R 6001-2:2017). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the coarse and fine grain grits sizes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the coarse and fine grain grits sizes for the purpose of removing complex ceramic curved surfaces and to achieve stable mirror requirements, as noted by Qun (lines 62-63).
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Hence, the argument is moot. Amended Claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2, 5-7 maintain rejection.
Claim Interpretations
The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are maintained, with additions below.
Examiner Note: A method is defined as a series of actions (MPEP 2106 (I), i.e., “processes…defines “actions”; inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). Thus, since methods are defined by actions, the method is given weight only to the extent that it impacts the method in a manipulative sense. See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31, noting “recited structural limitations must affect method in manipulative sense and not amount to mere claiming of a use of a particular structure”. Listed below are structural limitations:
Regarding Claim 6 – “the surface after the second polishing process has no needle-like silicon nitride crystal particles, and has no recesses of 40 um or more in depth; the first polishing process and the second polishing process collectively remove needle- like silicon nitride crystal particles from the surface of the boron nitride plate and smooth the surface of the boron nitride plate; such that, after the second polishing process, the surface of the boron nitride plate has no recesses of 40 um or more in depth” is merely a structural outcome of the method.
Regarding Claim 7 – “the first polishing process and the second polishing process flatten the boron
nitride plate and smooth the surface of the boron nitride plate; such that, after the second polishing
process, a warp amount of the boron nitride plate is not more than 0.1 mm; and a maximum height
roughness Rz of the boron nitride plate after the second polishing process is not more than 40 um”
is merely a structural outcome of the method.
Regarding Claim 15 – “a warp amount of the boron nitride plate after the second polishing process is not more than 0.1 mm, and a maximum height roughness Rz of the boron nitride plate after the second polishing process is not more than 40 μm”, is merely a structural outcome of the method.
Regarding Claim 18 - “before the first polishing process, the surface of the boron nitride plate has
needle-like silicon nitride crystal particles having an aspect ratio of not less than 2” is merely claiming
use of a particular structure; “and the first polishing process and the second polishing process
collectively remove needle- like silicon nitride crystal particles from the surface of the boron nitride
plate”, is merely a structural outcome of the method.
Regarding Claim 20 – “the surface of the boron nitride plate after the second polishing process has no
needle-like silicon nitride crystal particles and has no recesses of 40 um or more in depth”, is merely a
structural outcome of the method.
Regarding Claim 21 – “the first polishing process and the second polishing process flatten the boron
nitride plate and smooth the surface of the boron nitride plate such that, after the second polishing
process, a warp amount of the boron nitride plate is not more than 0.1 mm, and a maximum height
roughness Rz of the boron nitride plate is not more than 40 um”, is merely a structural outcome of the
method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021010478A1
(English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by
Amemiya et. al. (herein “Amemiya”) and in further view of CN102198610B (English language
translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Qun (herein “Qun”).
Regarding Claim 1, Amemiya teaches,
a boron nitride plate surface treatment method; line 560, “The surface of the cBN (cubic boron
nitride as cited in lines 16-17) sintered body is polished…”
a first polishing process of polishing a surface of a boron nitride plate by using a first polishing
member;
and a second polishing process of polishing the surface of a boron nitride plate by using a
second polishing member;
Line 616-617, “After processing the cubic nitride sintered body with a flat surface polishing
machine, mirror surface polishing is performed with a mirror surface polishing device…”.
While Amemiya discloses the sintered body is polished in order with polishing cloths having a count of
of # 140, # 400, # 600, # 1000, # 1500, and # 2000 (grit #) (lines 560-561) , Amemiya fails to disclose the
grit # for each of the first polishing process and the second polishing process, such that,
a first grit, the first grit being either (i) a macrogrit within a range of not less than F120 and not
more than F220, as defined in JIS R 6001-1:2017,
or,
(ii) a microgrit within a range of not less than #240 and not more than #320, as defined in JIS R
6001-2:2017.
having a second grit, the second grit being a microgrit within a range of not less
than #360 and not more than #1000, as defined in JIS R 6001-2:2017, the second polishing
process being performed after the first polishing process.
In an analogous endeavor of polishing structural and functional ceramics (line 15; boron nitride is
considered a structural ceramic) ), Qun teaches multiple sequential polishing processes for ceramic
complex surfaces . Further, Qun discloses Step 1 of polishing using a coarse grain abrasive cloth or
sandpaper of 200-300 # (line 78-79) along with W3.5-W.10 abrasives (3.5-10um abrasive particles) and
Step 2 of polishing using a medium- fined grained abrasive cloth or sandpaper of 400-600 # (lines 82-83)
with W3.5-W.10 abrasives.
Qun discloses the claimed invention except for the exact specific coarse and fine grain size relative to the JIS grit standard designations (JIS R 6001-2:2017) for a boron nitride substrate . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the coarse and fine grain grits sizes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the coarse and fine grain grits sizes for the purpose of removing complex ceramic curved surfaces and to achieve stable mirror requirements, as noted by Qun (lines 62-63). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polishing method of Qun for the polishing method of boron nitride of Amemiya, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of the having the sandpapers act as an abrasive storage space during polishing, where in the first polishing step the friction is large and the roughness is lowered quickly and where in the second polishing step the result provides a surface that is smoother, as noted by Qun (lines 104, 121, 127).
Regarding Claim 2– Amemiya and Qun in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
While Amemiya teaches the sintered body is polished with a polishing cloth (line 560), Amemiya does
not disclose, specifically,
the first polishing member and the second polishing member are abrasive papers;
Qun teaches abrasive papers for the first polishing member (line 78-79) and the second polishing
member (lines 82-83).
Further, abrasive polishing paper (sandpaper) is common in the grinding and polishing art. A person of
ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads
to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
sense. KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 5 – Amemiya and Qun in the rejection of claim 2 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 2.
Amemiya further teaches wherein,
a processing point speed in the first polishing process is faster than a processing point speed in
the second polishing process;
It would be obvious to PHOSITA that in a two-step process the first step can be performed at
faster speeds, the same speed, or slower speed than the second step. One would have chosen
to try a faster speed in the first step to more efficiently and expediently remove heavier surface
defects, such as pits/scratches/indentations that are typically present in a sintered ceramic
body.
when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,
82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6 – Amemiya and Qun in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Amemiya teaches wherein,
the surface after the second polishing process has no needle-like silicon nitride crystal particles,
and has no recesses of 40 um or more in depth;
the first polishing process and the second polishing process collectively remove needle- like
silicon nitride crystal particles from the surface of the boron nitride plate and smooth the
surface of the boron nitride plate;
such that, after the second polishing process, the surface of the boron nitride plate has no
recesses of 40 um or more in depth.
The instant claim is directed to a structural limitation; See Claim Interpretations. See MPEP
2112.01 - Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially
identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been
established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding Claim 7 – Amemiya and Qun in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Amemiya teaches wherein,
the first polishing process and the second polishing process flatten the boron nitride plate and
smooth the surface of the boron nitride plate;
such that, after the second polishing process, a warp amount of the boron nitride plate is not
more than 0.1 mm;
and a maximum height roughness Rz of the boron nitride plate after the second polishing
process is not more than 40 um.
The instant claim is directed to a structural limitation; See Claim Interpretations. See MPEP
2112.01 - Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially
identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been
established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 3, 4, 13-15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amemiya et. al.
and in further view of Qun and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,791,969 by Lund (herein “Lund”).
Regarding Claim 3– Amemiya and Qun in the rejection of claim 2 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 1.
While Qun discloses process parameters (time, lines 78, 85) and cites that pressure needs to be large or
cut (small) , the combination fails to disclose,
the first polishing member is mounted on a first mounting jig;
a pressing amount of the first polishing member is not less than 0.2 mm and not more than 1.0
mm; a processing point speed in the first polishing process is not less than 80 mm/s and not
more than 180 mm/s;
and the pressing amount of the first polishing member is a displacement distance by which the
first mounting jig is moved toward the surface of the boron nitride plate, in a direction
perpendicular to the surface of the boron nitride plate, from an initial position at which the first
polishing member mounted on the first mounting jig is in contact with the surface of the boron
nitride plate.
In an analogous endeavor of polishing a single side of a semiconductor wafer (Col 3 lines 47-55) (wafers
made of hard materials like silicon, silica, carbides and sapphire where cBN is a hard material), Lund
teaches an abrasive tape that is supplied by a supply reel, is feed through a series of tape guides, an
then to a take up reel (Col 6 lines 6-10) where the reels and tape guides can be considered a mounting
jig for the polishing member. Further, the abrasive tape that can have a flexible backing of paper (Col 5
line 67, Col 6 line 1) that is fed over a load roller 20 ( Col 6 lines 17-18). The tape is fed at a rate of 7
inches/min ( 3mm/s). When the load roller is forced against the wafer the compression of
the roller is 1/10th of an inch (2.54mm). The user can program into the device tape speed and
load roller force ( to compress the nip roller) (Col 10 lines 27-28).
The load roller 20 of FIG. 2 is mounted to a block assembly 22 which provides a means for positioning
roller 20 in close proximity to the substrate surface. Block 22 is mounted onto chassis 15 and is coupled
to a force applications means to forcefully press the load roller against the side of the wafer so that tape
16 may abrasively remove material. FIG. 8 shows the orientation of the wafer 30 in relation to load roller
20 (Col 6 lines 37-46). See Annotated Fig. 2 of Lund below:
PNG
media_image1.png
776
1303
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the load roller 20 presses down on the wafer 30 (perpendicular direction) from a position where
the load roller/tape 16 are in contact with the wafer, where then the load roller is compressed.
Lund teaches the claimed invention except for except for the claimed ranges for tape speed and the
pressing amount on a boron nitride substrate in a first polishing process. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize
the parameters of tape speed and pressing amount for a semiconductor wafer from the process of Lund
in the first polishing process of the combination for boron nitride, as one would be motivated to do so
for the purposes of supporting polishing the surface to achieve a more uniform accurate thickness
regardless of the surface hardness, as noted by Lund (Col 3 lines 17-18).
Regarding Claim 4– Amemiya and Qun in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
While Qun discloses process parameters (time, lines 78, 85) and cites that pressure needs to be large or
cut (small) , the combination fails to disclose,
in the second polishing process, a pressing amount of the second polishing member is not less
than 0.2 mm and not more than 1.0 mm, and a processing point speed is not less than 20 mm/s
and not more than 100 mm/s;
wherein,
in the second polishing process, a pressing amount of the second polishing member is not less
than 0.2 mm and not more than 1.0 mm, and a processing point speed is not less than 20 mm/s
and not more than 100 mm/s;
the second polishing member is mounted on a second mounting jig,
a pressing amount of the second polishing member is not less than 0.2 mm and not more than
1.0 mm, a processing point speed in the second polishing process is not less than 20 mm/s and
not more than 100 mm/s;
and the pressing amount of the second polishing member is a displacement distance by which
the second mounting jig is moved toward the surface of the boron nitride plate, in a direction
perpendicular to the surface of the boron nitride plate, from an initial position at which the
second polishing member mounted on the second mounting jig is in contact with the surface of
the boron nitride plate.
Lund teaches the same elements as described in Claim 3.
Lund teaches the claimed invention except for except for the claimed ranges for tape speed and the
pressing amount on a boron nitride substrate in a second polishing process. It would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
optimize the parameters of tape speed and pressing amount for a semiconductor wafer from the
process of Lund in the first polishing process of the combination for boron nitride, as one would be
motivated to do so for the purposes of supporting polishing the second surface to achieve a more
uniform accurate thickness regardless of the surface hardness, as noted by Lund (Col 3 lines 17-18).
Regarding Claim 13 – Amemiya, Qun and Lund in the rejection of claim 3 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 3.
While Qun discloses process parameters (time, lines 78, 85) and cites that pressure needs to be large or
cut (small) , the combination fails to disclose,
the second polishing member is mounted on a second mounting jig;
a pressing amount of the second polishing member is not less than 0.2 mm and not more than
mm;
a processing point speed in the second polishing process is not less than 20 mm/s and not more
than 100 mm/s;
and the pressing amount of the second polishing member is a displacement distance by which
the second mounting jig is moved toward the surface of the boron nitride plate, in a direction
perpendicular to the surface of the boron nitride plate, from an initial position at which the
second polishing member mounted on the second mounting jig is in contact with the surface of
the boron nitride plate.
Lund teaches the same elements as described in Claim 3.
Lund teaches the claimed invention except for except for the claimed ranges for tape speed and the
pressing amount on a boron nitride substrate in a second polishing process. It would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
optimize the parameters of tape speed and pressing amount for a semiconductor wafer from the
process of Lund in the first polishing process of the combination for boron nitride, as one would be
motivated to do so for the purposes of supporting polishing the second surface to achieve a more
uniform accurate thickness regardless of the surface hardness, as noted by Lund (Col 3 lines 17-18).
Regarding Claim 14 – Amemiya, Qun and Lund in the rejection of claim 13 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 13.
Amemiya further teaches wherein,
a processing point speed in the first polishing process is faster than a processing point speed in
the second polishing process; ; A PHOSITA would know the first polishing process speed can be
faster than subsequent/second polishing process speeds due to the common in the art use of
grit sizes that change from coarse to fine (relative) in sequential polishing processes. The coarse
grit is used at greater polishing speeds to remove more material, relative to subsequent/second
polishing process speeds that use finer grit to remove less material. The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 15 – Amemiya, Qun and Lund in the rejection of claim 14 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 14.
Amemiya further teaches wherein,
a warp amount of the boron nitride plate after the second polishing process is not more than 0.1
mm,
and a maximum height roughness Rz of the boron nitride plate after the second polishing
process is not more than 40 μm. The instant claim is directed to a structural
limitations ; See Claim Interpretations. See MPEP 2112.01 - Where the claimed and prior art
products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of
either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195
USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding Claim 18 - Amemiya and Qun in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
wherein,
before the first polishing process, the surface of the boron nitride plate has needle-like silicon
nitride crystal particles having an aspect ratio of not less than 2;
and the first polishing process and the second polishing process collectively remove needle- like
silicon nitride crystal particles from the surface of the boron nitride plate.
The instant claim is directed to a structural limitations ; See Claim Interpretations. See MPEP
2112.01 - Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially
identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been
established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amemiya in further view of
Qun and in further view of Lund.
Regarding Claim 19 – Amemiya teaches ,
a boron nitride plate surface treatment method; line 560, “The surface of the cBN (cubic boron
nitride as cited in lines 16-17) sintered body is polished…”
comprising,
a first polishing process of polishing a surface of a boron nitride plate by using a first polishing
member;
and a second polishing process of polishing the surface of the boron nitride plate by using a
second polishing member;
Line 616-617, “After processing the cubic nitride sintered body with a flat surface polishing
machine, mirror surface polishing is performed with a mirror surface polishing device…”.
wherein the processing point speed in the first polishing process is faster than the processing
point speed in the second polishing process;
It would be obvious to PHOSITA that in a two-step process the first step can be performed at
faster speeds, the same speed, or slower speed than the second step. One would have chosen
to try a faster speed in the first step to more efficiently and expediently remove heavier surface
defects, such as pits/scratches/indentations that are typically present in a sintered ceramic
body.
when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,
82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
While Amemiya discloses the sintered body is polished in order with polishing cloths having a count of
of # 140, # 400, # 600, # 1000, # 1500, and # 2000 (grit #) (lines 560-561) , Amemiya fails to disclose the
grit # for each of the first polishing process and the second polishing process, such that,
a first polishing process having a grit within a range of not less than F120 and not more than
F220;
or,
within a range of not less than #240 and not more than #320;
a second polishing process having a grit within a range of not less than #360 and not more than
#1000 after the first polishing process;
In an analogous endeavor of polishing structural and functional ceramics (line 15; boron nitride is
considered a structural ceramic) ), Qun teaches multiple sequential polishing processes for ceramic
complex surfaces . Further, Qun discloses Step 1 of polishing using a coarse grain abrasive cloth or
sandpaper of 200-300 # (line 78-79) along with W3.5-W.10 abrasives (3.5-10um abrasive particles) and
Step 2 of polishing using a medium- fined grained abrasive cloth or sandpaper of 400-600 # (lines 82-83)
with W3.5-W.10 abrasives. Qun discloses the claimed invention except for use on a boron nitride
substrate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to use the polishing method of Qun for the polishing method of
Amemiya, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of the having the sandpapers act as an
abrasive storage space during polishing, where in the first polishing step the friction is large and the
roughness is lowered quickly and where in the second polishing step the result provides a surface that is
smoother, as noted by Qun (lines 104, 121, 127).
the first polishing member and the second polishing member are abrasive papers;
Qun teaches abrasive papers for the first polishing member (line 78-79) and the second polishing
member (lines 82-83).Further, abrasive polishing paper (sandpaper) is common in the grinding and
polishing art. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill and common sense. KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The combination of Amemiya and Qun fails to disclose wherein,
the first polishing member is mounted on a first mounting jig;
in the first polishing process, a pressing amount of the first polishing member is not less than 0.2
mm and not more than 1.0 mm;
and a processing point speed in the first polishing process is not less than 80 mm/s and not
more than 180 mm/s;
wherein the pressing amount of the first polishing member is a displacement distance by which
the first mounting jig is moved toward the surface of the boron nitride plate, in a direction
perpendicular to the surface of the boron nitride plate, from an initial position at which the first
polishing member mounted on the first mounting jig is in contact with the surface of the boron
nitride plate;
In an analogous endeavor of polishing a single side of a semiconductor wafer (Col 3 lines 47-55) (wafers
made of hard materials like silicon, silica, carbides and sapphire where cBN is a hard material), Lund
teaches an abrasive tape that is supplied by a supply reel, is feed through a series of tape guides, an
then to a take up reel (Col 6 lines 6-10) where the reels and tape guides can be considered a mounting
jig for the polishing member. Further, the abrasive tape that can have a flexible backing of paper (Col 5
line 67, Col 6 line 1) that is fed over a load roller 20 ( Col 6 lines 17-18). The tape is fed at a rate of 7
inches/min ( 3mm/s). When the load roller is forced against the wafer the compression of
the roller is 1/10th of an inch (2.54mm). The user can program into the device tape speed and
load roller force ( to compress the nip roller) (Col 10 lines 27-28).
The load roller 20 of FIG. 2 is mounted to a block assembly 22 which provides a means for positioning
roller 20 in close proximity to the substrate surface. Block 22 is mounted onto chassis 15 and is coupled
to a force applications means to forcefully press the load roller against the side of the wafer so that tape
16 may abrasively remove material. FIG. 8 shows the orientation of the wafer 30 in relation to load roller
20 (Col 6 lines 37-46). See Annotated Fig. 2 of Lund below:
PNG
media_image2.png
711
1194
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Here, the load roller 20 presses down on the wafer 30 (perpendicular direction) from a position where
the load roller/tape 16 are in contact with the wafer, where then the load roller is compressed.
Lund teaches the claimed invention except for except for the claimed ranges for tape speed and the
pressing amount on a boron nitride substrate in a first polishing process. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize
the parameters of tape speed and pressing amount for a semiconductor wafer from the process of Lund
in the first polishing process of the combination for boron nitride, as one would be motivated to do so
for the purposes of supporting polishing the surface to achieve a more uniform accurate thickness
regardless of the surface hardness, as noted by Lund (Col 3 lines 17-18).
the second polishing member is mounted on a second mounting jig;
wherein, in the second polishing process, a pressing amount of the second polishing member is
not less than 0.2 mm and not more than 1.0 mm;
and a processing point speed in the second polishing process is not less than 20 mm/s and not
more than 100 mm/s;
and wherein the pressing amount of the second polishing member is a displacement distance
by which the second mounting jig is moved toward the surface of the boron nitride plate, in a
direction perpendicular to the surface of the boron nitride plate, from an initial position at
which the second polishing member mounted on the second mounting jig is in contact with the
surface of the boron nitride plate.
Lund teaches the same elements as described for the first polishing member.
Lund teaches the claimed invention except for except for the claimed ranges for tape speed and the
pressing amount on a boron nitride substrate in a second polishing process. It would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
optimize the parameters of tape speed and pressing amount for a semiconductor wafer from the
process of Lund in the first polishing process of the combination for boron nitride, as one would be
motivated to do so for the purposes of supporting polishing the second surface to achieve a more
uniform accurate thickness regardless of the surface hardness, as noted by Lund (Col 3 lines 17-18).
Regarding Claim 20 – Amemiya, Qun, and Lund in the rejection of Claim 19 teaches all the limitation of
Claim 19.
wherein,
the surface of the boron nitride plate after the second polishing process has no needle-like
silicon nitride crystal particles and has no recesses of 40 um or more in depth. See Claim
Interpretations. See MPEP 2112.01 - Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by
identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or
obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA
1977).
Regarding Claim 21 - Amemiya, Qun, and Lund in the rejection of Claim 19 teaches all the limitation of
Claim 19.
wherein,
the first polishing process and the second polishing process flatten the boron nitride plate and
smooth the surface of the boron nitride plate;
such that,
after the second polishing process, a warp amount of the boron nitride plate is not more than
0.1 mm, and a maximum height roughness Rz of the boron nitride plate is not more than 40 um.
See Claim Interpretations. See MPEP 2112.01 - Where the claimed and prior art products are
produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either
anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ
430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
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 CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights