DETAILED ACTION
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
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (6,294,439), hereinafter Sasaki in view of Masuko et al. (10,784,165), hereinafter Masuko, and Sekiya (2004/0072388).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki teaches a manufacturing method for manufacturing a plurality of chips by dividing a workpiece with a plurality of intersecting streets set thereon, the manufacturing method substantially as claimed except for the limitation in the bolded texts comprising:
a cutting step of cutting one surface of the workpiece by a cutting blade 24 to thereby form cut grooves 22 along the streets, the cut grooves having peripheral surfaces between each of the plurality of chips and a groove bottom having a tip; and
a grinding step (grinding tool 28) of grinding another surface on a side opposite to the one surface of the workpiece to thereby thin the workpiece to a finish thickness of reaching the cut grooves and to divide the workpiece into the plurality of chips, after the cutting step is carried out,
wherein the cut grooves are formed such that the groove bottom has flat surfaces inclined relative to the peripheral surfaces, the flat surfaces connecting the respective peripheral surfaces and the tip of the groove bottom, and, in the grinding step, a tip of the groove bottom is ground before any other portion of the cut groove.
See Figs. 8, 9 and 11; and col. 9, lines 32-40.
Sasaki teaches that the grind step can stop between the tip of the groove and the thickness of the finished chip which is region B. When region B is partially ground, the bottom of the groove is tapered in in the same manner as the claimed invention. However, to the degree the Applicant would argue that to stop the grinding process in the B region is not obvious to one skilled in the art, the following alternate rejection is provided.
Masuko teaches a method of manufacturing chip comprising a cutting step for making grooves 20 having a tapered bottom (20a). See Fig. 1E and 4. The tapered bottom of the grooves generates a flared bottom of finished chips (Fig. 4). Masuko further teaches that the flared end bottom of the finished chips would space out the finished chips during transporting which reduces collision among the chips which leads to quality improvement of the chips. See col. 4, lines 53-63.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sasaki such that the grind step is stopped in region B to form the finished chips having a flared bottom as taught by Masuko for spacing out the finished chips during transporting which reduces collision among the chips which leads to quality improvement of the chips.
Sasaki does not teach “wherein the cut grooves are formed such that the groove bottom has flat surfaces inclined relative to the peripheral surfaces, the flat surfaces connecting the respective peripheral surfaces and the tip of the groove bottom”.
Sekiya teaches the art equivalent of a groove having a V shaped tip (19B) and a groove having a U shaped tip (19A) in making grooves on a semiconductor chip. See Figs. 7 and 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make V-shaped tip in Sasaki since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Regarding claim 2, the depths of the grooves being greater than the finished thickness of the finished chips are best seen in Fig. 9 in Sasaki.
Regarding claim 3, the blade reducing its thickness toward its tip as evidenced in section B of the grooves. See Fig. 9 in Sasaki.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the modified method of Sasaki discloses the claimed invention except for the angle of the tip of the groove between 120-160 degrees. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the angle of the tip of the groove between 120-160 degrees, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (6,294,439), hereinafter Sasaki in view of Masuko et al. (10,784,165), hereinafter Masuko, and Sekiya (2004/0072388) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Martin (2021/0082760).
The modified method of Sasaki teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the cutting blade having one inclined surface.
Martin teaches grooves on a chip having a V-shape 17 and half V-shape 67, and corresponding blades (10, 12) for making those types of groove. See 3B and 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a half V-shape blade as taught by Martin to run twice on a groove to make a V-shaped groove instead of changing a new blade to reduce blade installation time.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (6,294,439), hereinafter Sasaki in view of Masuko et al. (10,784,165), hereinafter Masuko, Genda et al. (2005/0106782), hereinafter Genda.
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki teaches a manufacturing method for manufacturing a plurality of chips by dividing a workpiece with a plurality of intersecting streets set thereon, the manufacturing method comprising:
a cutting step of cutting one surface of the workpiece by a cutting blade 24 to thereby form cut grooves 22 along the streets, the cut grooves having peripheral surfaces between each of the plurality of chips and a groove bottom having a tip: and
a grinding step (grinding tool 28) of grinding another surface on a side opposite to the one surface of the workpiece to thereby thin the workpiece to a finish thickness of reaching the cut grooves and to divide the workpiece into the plurality of chips, after the cutting step is carried out,
wherein, in the cutting step, the cutting blade is caused to cut into each street a plurality of times with a cutting-in depth and a cutting-in position varied using the same cutting blade, and, in the grinding step, a tip of the groove bottom is ground before any other portion of the cut groove.
See Figs. 8, 9 and 11; and col. 9, lines 32-40.
Sasaki teaches that the grind step can stop between the tip of the groove and the thickness of the finished chip which is region B. When region B is partially ground, the bottom of the groove is tapered in in the same manner as the claimed invention. However, to the degree the Applicant would argue that to stop the grinding process in the B region is not obvious to one skilled in the art, the following alternate rejection is provided.
Masuko teaches a method of manufacturing chip comprising a cutting step for making grooves 20 having a tapered bottom (20a). See Fig. 1E and 4. The tapered bottom of the grooves generates a flared bottom of finished chips (Fig. 4). Masuko further teaches that the flared end bottom of the finished chips would space out the finished chips during transporting which reduces collision among the chips which leads to quality improvement of the chips. See col. 4, lines 53-63.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Sasaki such that the grind step is stopped in region B to form the finished chips having a flared bottom as taught by Masuko for spacing out the finished chips during transporting which reduces collision among the chips which leads to quality improvement of the chips.
Sasaki does not teach “wherein, in the cutting step, the cutting blade is caused to cut into each street a plurality of times with a cutting-in depth and a cutting-in position varied using the same cutting blade.”
Genda teaches that a semiconductor substrate is fragile and could be damaged by a cutting blade. Genda further teaches a single cutting tool 725 being run multiple times to make a single groove on the substrate. See Fig. 11 and para. [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a small blade to run multiple times on a single groove in a width direction and a depth direction for forming a grove with a tip to reduce stress on the substrate which may cause damage to the substrate.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (6,294,439), hereinafter Sasaki in view of Masuko et al. (10,784,165), hereinafter Masuko, Genda et al. (2005/0106782), hereinafter Genda as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Norimoto (2019/0122928).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method of Sasaki teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for stepped grooves on the substrate.
Norimoto teaches a wafter processing method comprising the step of making stepped grooves on a substrate. See Fig. 4.
The grooves having a V-shaped tip and the grooves having a stepped tip are art equivalents known in the semiconductor making art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the stepped groves on the substrate in the modified method of Sasaki since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Sekiya reference is introduced to teach a V-shaped tip of a groove.
Genda reference is introduced to the use of a single cutting tool running multiple times to make a groove.
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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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 at 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724