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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/28/2026.
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application filed on 03/07/2024. Claims 1-24 are currently pending. Claims 13-24 are withdrawn. Claims 1-12 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2024 and 10/30/2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
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 filler-application module configured to apply and cure a filler to a gap between peripheral portions of adjacent wafers of the plurality of wafers” in claim 1, lines 3-4 and corresponding to the structural element 300 which includes a rotary- holding mechanism (a substrate holder) 303 configured to horizontally hold a laminated substrate, an application module (application section) 301A, and a curing module (cure section) 301B as described in paragraphs 0035/0040. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof;
“a grinding module configured to grind an upper surface of the laminated substrate” in claim 1, lines 5-6 and corresponding to the structural element 400 which includes a spindle 410 rotated by a motor not shown, a grinding head 412 secured to a tip of the spindle, a grinding table 414 on which the laminated wafer are placed, and a table shaft 416 secured to the grinding table as described in paragraphs 0058. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof;
“a polishing module configured to polish an upper surface of the laminated substrate” in claim 1, lines 7-8 and corresponding to the structural element 500 which includes a polishing table 503 to which a polishing pad 501 is attached, a polishing head 505 for holding and pressing the laminated wafer, and a polishing-liquid supply nozzle 506 for supplying a polishing liquid as described in paragraphs 0067. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof;
“a substrate transfer module configured to transfer the laminated substrate from the grinding module to the polishing module” in claim 3, lines 2-3 and corresponding to the structural element 200 which includes transfer robot 206 as described in paragraphs 0020. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof;
“a finish-polishing module configured to further polishing the laminated substrate that have been polished” in claim 5, lines 2-3 and corresponding to the structural element 700 which same configuration as the CMP apparatus described with reference to FIG. 10 which includes a polishing table 503 to which a polishing pad 501 is attached, a polishing head 505 for holding and pressing the laminated wafer, and a polishing-liquid supply nozzle 506 for supplying a polishing liquid as described in paragraphs 0067/0091. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof;
“a filler-removal module configured to remove the filler from the laminated substrate” in claim 7, lines 2-3 and corresponding to the structural element 800 which includes a substrate holder 802 configured to hold and rotate the laminated wafer, a polishing head assembly 811 that presses an polishing tape PT against the peripheral portion of the laminated wafer, and a removal-agent supply mechanism 850 has a removal-agent nozzle 851 configured to supply the removal agent into the peripheral portion of the laminated wafer as described in paragraphs 0097/0107. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof;
“a filler-removal unit configured to press a polishing tape against the peripheral portion of the laminated substrate to thereby remove the filler” in claim 8, lines 4-5 and corresponding to the structural element 813 which or bringing the polishing tape PT into contact with the peripheral portion of the laminated wafer as described in paragraphs 0102. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof;
“a removal-agent supply mechanism configured to supply a removal agent” claim 9, lines 2-3, claim 10, lines 4-5 and corresponding to the structural element 850 which includes a removal-agent nozzle 851 configured to supply the removal agent into the peripheral portion of the laminated wafer, a removal-agent supply line 852 coupled to the removal-agent nozzle, and an open/close valve 853 mounted to the removal-agent supply line as described in paragraphs 0107. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof;
“a rotary-holding mechanism configured to hold the laminated substrate in a vertical state” in claim 12, lines 3-4 and corresponding to the structural element 303 which includes as a dish-shaped holding stage 304 configured to hold a back surface of the laminated substrate as described in paragraphs 0035. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof;
“an application module configured to apply the filler into the gap in the laminated substrate” in claim 12, lines 5-6 and corresponding to the structural 301A which includes a syringe mechanism 345 for injecting a filler into a gap between the first wafer WI and the second wafer as described in paragraphs 0045. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof;
“a curing module configured to cure the filler” in claim 12, line 7 and corresponding to the structural 301B which includes a lamp heater 355 as described in paragraph 0050. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “polishing module configures to polish an upper surface of the laminated substrate” in lines 7-8. It is unclear if the applicant is attempting to claim multiple/different upper surfaces of the laminated substrate or if the applicant is referring back to the upper surface of the laminated substrate as introduced in claim 1, lines 5-6, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be referring to a single upper surface of the laminated substrate.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an upper surface” in line 3. It is unclear if the applicant is attempting to claim multiple/different upper surfaces of the laminated substrate or if the applicant is referring back to the upper surface of the laminated substrate as introduced in claim 1, lines 5-6, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be referring to a single upper surface of the laminated substrate.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein the polishing module, the grinding module, and the polishing module are arranged adjacent to each other along a direction of transferring the substrate." in lines 1-3. It is unclear which polishing module the second polishing module is referring to since only a single module is introduced in claim 1, line 7 (is the applicant attempting to claim a different/multiple polishing modules?), thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be referring to a single polishing module that with the grinding module are arranged adjacent to each other along a direction of transferring the substrate.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “an upper surface” in lines 4-5. It is unclear if the applicant is attempting to claim multiple/different upper surfaces of the laminated substrate or if the applicant is referring back to the upper surface of the laminated substrate as introduced in claim 1, lines 5-6, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be referring to a single upper surface of the laminated substrate.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the buff pad" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 5, 7-10, and 12 depends on claim 1 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b).
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, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 110854039) in view of Fukuoka (WO 2019013042).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses: a substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1 and see also paragraph 0025) for processing a laminated substrate manufactured by bonding a plurality of wafers to each other (Applicant is reminded, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)), comprising:
a filler-application module (element 101 and see also paragraph 0035) configured to apply and cure a filler to a gap between peripheral portions of adjacent wafers of the plurality of wafers (The examiner indicates that the plurality of wafers and any associated structure (gap between peripheral portions) have not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention (i.e. substrate processing apparatus). Furthermore, the prior art discloses in paragraph 0038 element 101 (filler-application module) includes “a dispensing module and a curing module” used to inject fluid adhesive (apply filler) to bond stacked binding wafer and the curing module to cure the adhesive (cure filler), and giving that there is no additional structure provided or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable to apply and cure a filler to a gap between peripheral portions of adjacent wafers of the plurality of wafers, as recited.);
a grinding module (element 103 and see also paragraph 0046) configured to grind an upper surface of the laminated substrate to which the filler has been applied (The examiner indicates that the laminated substrate and any associated (upper surface) have not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention (i.e. substrate processing apparatus). Furthermore, the prior art discloses in paragraph 0049 utilizing element 103 (grinding module) to thin a wafer (element 303) which is thinned in the upper surface (see figure 8) and giving that there is no additional structure provided or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of grinding an upper surface of the laminated substrate to which the filler has been applied, as recited.).
However, Yu appears to be silent wherein the substrate processing apparatus comprises a polishing module configured to polish an upper surface of the laminated substrate that has been ground.
Fukuoka is also concern in providing a substrate processing apparatus (Figures 1-15 element 1 and see also paragraph 0017) comprising a bonded plurality of wafers (see figure 2 and see also paragraph 0017), a grinding module (element 21 and see also paragraph 0024), and further comprising a polishing module (elements 22 and see also paragraph 0031) configured to polish an upper surface of the laminated substrate that has been ground (see paragraphs 0031/0073).
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 Yu to incorporate the teachings of Fukuoka to provide a polishing module configured to polish an upper surface of the laminated substrate that has been ground. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding an additional processing device in the form of the polishing module that rough polishes the workpiece would necessarily chemically mechanically polishes the non-bonded surface of the wafer as disclosed by Fukuoka (see paragraph 0033), thus further treating the workpiece to a desired finish.
Regarding claim 4, Yu modified discloses: the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the polishing module, the grinding module, and the polishing module are arranged adjacent to each other along a direction of transferring the substrate (see figure 1 of prior art Fukuoka, showing the polishing module (element 22) and grinding module (element 21) arranged adjacent to each other along a direction of transferring the substrate (see left-right arrow by element 151)).
Regarding claim 5, Yu modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the substrate polishing mechanism further comprising: a finish-polishing module configured to further polishing the laminated substrate that have been polished.
Fukuoka is also concern in providing a substrate processing apparatus (Figures 1-15 element 1 and see also paragraph 0017) comprising a bonded plurality of wafers (see figure 2 and see also paragraph 0017), a grinding module (element 21 and see also paragraph 0024), and a polishing module (elements 22 and see also paragraph 0031). Fukuoka further teaches wherein the substrate polishing mechanism further comprising: a finish-polishing module (element 23) configured to further polishing the laminated substrate that have been polished (see paragraph 0031).
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 Yu to incorporate the teachings of Fukuoka to provide a finish-polishing module configured to further polishing the laminated substrate that have been polished. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding an additional processing device in the form of a finishing-polishing module that finish polishes the workpiece would necessarily further chemically mechanically polishes the non-bonded surface of the wafer as disclosed by Fukuoka (see paragraph 0033), thus further treating the workpiece to a desired finish.
Regarding claim 7, Yu modified discloses: the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a filler-removal module (element 102 and see also paragraph 0043) configured to remove the filler from the laminated substrate that has been ground (see figures 9-10).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 110854039) in view of Fukuoka (WO 2019013042) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aizawa (US Pub. No. 2016/0008948).
Regarding claim 2, Yu modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the polishing module comprises: a polishing table configured to support a polishing pad; a polishing head configured to hold the laminated substrate and press the upper surface of the laminated substrate against the polishing pad; and a polishing-liquid supply nozzle configured to supply a polishing liquid to the polishing pad.
Aizawa is also concern in providing a substrate processing apparatus (Figures 1-9 element 1 and see also paragraph 0031) comprising a polishing module (element 30A and see also paragraph 0035) and wherein the polishing module comprises: a polishing table (element 300A) configured to support a polishing pad (element 305A and see also paragraph 0043); a polishing head (element 301A) configured to hold the laminated substrate and press the upper surface of the laminated substrate against the polishing pad (The examiner indicates that the laminated substrate and any associated structure (upper surface) have not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention (i.e. substrate processing apparatus). Furthermore, the prior art discloses in paragraph see paragraph 0036, the prior art discloses utilizing element 301A (polishing head) for holding and pressing the wafer, and giving that there is no additional structure provided or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the polishing head hold the laminated substrate and press the upper surface of the laminated substrate against the polishing pad, as recited.); and a polishing-liquid supply nozzle (element 302A) configured to supply a polishing liquid to the polishing pad (see paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Yu to incorporate the teachings of Aizawa to provide wherein the polishing module comprises: a polishing table configured to support a polishing pad; a polishing head configured to hold the laminated substrate and press the upper surface of the laminated substrate against the polishing pad; and a polishing-liquid supply nozzle configured to supply a polishing liquid to the polishing pad. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing the polishing module with known components such as a polishing table, polishing head, and polishing liquid supply nozzle would necessarily provide the predictable result of chemically mechanically polishing a surface of the wafer to a desired finished during operations, thus enhancing the capabilities of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, Yu modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 5, but appears to be silent wherein the finish-polishing module comprises: a polishing table configured to support a polishing pad; a polishing head configured to hold the laminated substrate and to press an upper surface of the laminated substrate against the polishing pad; and a polishing-liquid supply nozzle configured to supply a polishing liquid to the polishing pad.
Aizawa is also concern in providing a substrate processing apparatus (Figures 1-9 element 1 and see also paragraph 0031) comprising a finish-polishing module (element 30B and see also paragraphs 0035/0043) and wherein the polishing module comprises: a polishing table (element 300B) configured to support a polishing pad (element 305 and see also paragraph 0043); a polishing head (element 301B) configured to hold the laminated substrate and press the upper surface of the laminated substrate against the polishing pad (The examiner indicates that the laminated substrate and any associated structure (upper surface) have not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention (i.e. substrate processing apparatus). Furthermore, the prior art discloses in paragraph see paragraph 0036, the prior art discloses utilizing element 301 (polishing head) for holding and pressing the wafer, and giving that there is no additional structure provided or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the polishing head hold the laminated substrate and press the upper surface of the laminated substrate against the polishing pad, as recited.); and a polishing-liquid supply nozzle (element 302B) configured to supply a polishing liquid to the polishing pad (see paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Yu to incorporate the teachings of Aizawa to provide wherein the finish-polishing module comprises: a polishing table configured to support a polishing pad; a polishing head configured to hold the laminated substrate and press the upper surface of the laminated substrate against the polishing pad; and a polishing-liquid supply nozzle configured to supply a polishing liquid to the polishing pad. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing the polishing module with known components such as a polishing table, polishing head, and polishing liquid supply nozzle would necessarily provide the predictable result of chemically mechanically polishing a surface of the wafer to a desired finished during operations, thus enhancing the capabilities of the apparatus. in
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 110854039) in view of Fukuoka (WO 2019013042) and Aizawa (US Pub. No. 2016/0008948) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Ishii (US Pub. No. 2014/0220866).
Regarding claim 3, Yu modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1-2, but appears to be silent further comprising: a substrate transfer module configured to transfer the laminated substrate from the grinding module to the polishing module while inverting an upper surface and a lower surface of the laminated substrate.
Ishii is also concern in providing a substrate processing apparatus (Figures 2-7 and see also paragraph 0026) comprising a grinding module (element 11 and see also paragraph 0026 where the prior art discloses element 11 comprises a polishing head (element 14) having a polishing tool (element 14) and see also paragraph 0028 where the prior art discloses the polishing tool can instead be “a grindstone” as the tool, thus the examiner indicates that element 11 is a grinding module when the grindstone is used as the tool) and a polishing module (element 41 and see also paragraph 0033). Ishii further teaches wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprising: a substrate transfer module (element 75 and see also paragraph 0043) configured to transfer the laminated substrate from the grinding module to the polishing module while inverting an upper surface and a lower surface of the laminated substrate (see figure 6 showing the substrate transfer module (element 75) between the griding module (element 11) and polishing module (element 41) and see paragraph 0044 where the prior art discloses that the wafer is removed from element 11 (grinding module) by element 75 (substrate transfer module) and “is inverted” and “is then” transported to element 41 (polishing module)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Yu to incorporate the teachings of Ishii to provide a substrate transfer module configured to transfer the laminated substrate from the grinding module to the polishing module while inverting an upper surface and a lower surface of the laminated substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a known transfer module would necessarily provide an automated controlled means for transferring the substrate to different processing devices during operations, thus increasing productivity during operations.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 110854039) in view of Fukuoka (WO 2019013042) as applied to claim 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Nakanishi (KR20160023569).
Regarding claim 8, Yu modified discloses: the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the filler-removal module comprises: a substrate holder (element 342 and see also paragraph 0043) configured to hold and rotate the laminated substrate (see figure 9 and see also paragraph 0043).
Furthermore, Yu modified discloses a different means of a filler-removal unit (elements 340/341) in the form of a blade (element 340) and control module (element 341) in order to press against the peripheral portion of the substrate to remove the filler (see figures 9-10). However, Yu modified appears to be silent wherein the filler-removal module comprises a filler-removal unit configured to press a polishing tape against the peripheral portion of the laminated substrate to thereby remove the filler.
Nakanishi is also concern in providing a substrate processing apparatus (Figures 1-30 and see also paragraph 0015) comprising a filler-removal module (Figure 2) comprising a substrate holder (element 3) configured to hold and rotate the substrate (see figure 2 and see also paragraph 0019) and further comprising a filler-removal unit (element 1) configured to press a polishing tape (element 180 and see also paragraph 0019) against the peripheral portion of the laminated substrate to thereby remove the filler (see paragraphs 0020-0021 where the prior art discloses utilizing element 180 (polishing tape) to be brought into pressure contact with the periphery of the wafer W (i.e., the edge portion and the bevel portion) to remove the hard film (SiC film or adhesive) (i.e. filler) from the periphery of the wafer, thus being capable of removing the filler).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the filler-removal unit of Yu modified with the filler-removal unit of Nakanishi in order to provide a filler-removal unit configured to press a polishing tape against the peripheral portion of the laminated substrate to thereby remove the filler, since simple substitution of known elements for another to obtain a predictable results of coupling two different parts. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a known filler-removal unit would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing the user to accurately/automatically be capable of removing a filler from the substrate during operations, thus increasing productivity and enhancing the capabilities of the apparatus ((See MPEP 2143.1(B)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 110854039) in view of Fukuoka (WO 2019013042) and Nakanishi (KR 20160023569) as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Hayase (US Patent No. 5,447,596).
Regarding claim 9, Yu modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 7-8, but appears to be silent wherein the filler-removal module further comprises: a removal-agent supply mechanism configured to supply a removal agent, which can dissolve the filler, to the laminated substrate.
Hayase is concern in providing a substrate processing apparatus (Figures 1-18 and see also col. 4, ll. 46-62) comprising a filler-removal module (Figure 16) and wherein the filler-removal module further comprises: a removal-agent supply mechanism (element 101 and see also col. 9, ll. 10) configured to supply a removal agent (element 102 and see also col. 9, ll. 11), which can dissolve the filler, to the laminated substrate (see figure 16 and see also col. 9, ll. 6-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Yu to incorporate the teachings of Hayase to provide wherein the filler-removal module further comprises: a removal-agent supply mechanism configured to supply a removal agent, which can dissolve the filler, to the laminated substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing the filler-removal module with a known removal-agent supply mechanism would necessarily allow the user to provide an automated means to consistently and accurately dissolving the adhesive/filler between the substrates during operations, thus enhancing the capabilities of the apparatus.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 110854039) in view of Fukuoka (WO 2019013042) as applied to claim 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Hayase (US Patent No. 5,447,596).
Regarding claim 8, Yu modified discloses: the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the filler-removal module comprises: a substrate holder (element 342 and see also paragraph 0043) configured to hold and rotate the laminated substrate (see figure 9 and see also paragraph 0043).
However, Yu modified appears to be silent wherein the wherein the filler-removal module further comprises a removal-agent supply mechanism configured to supply a removal agent, which can dissolve the filler, to the laminated substrate.
Hayase is concern in providing a substrate processing apparatus (Figures 1-18 and see also col. 4, ll. 46-62) comprising a filler-removal module (Figure 16) and wherein the filler-removal module further comprises: a removal-agent supply mechanism (element 101 and see also col. 9, ll. 10) configured to supply a removal agent (element 102 and see also col. 9, ll. 11), which can dissolve the filler, to the laminated substrate (see figure 16 and see also col. 9, ll. 6-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Yu to incorporate the teachings of Hayase to provide wherein the filler-removal module further comprises: a removal-agent supply mechanism configured to supply a removal agent, which can dissolve the filler, to the laminated substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing the filler-removal module with a known removal-agent supply mechanism would necessarily allow the user to provide an automated means to consistently and accurately dissolving the adhesive/filler between the substrates during operations, thus enhancing the capabilities of the apparatus.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 110854039) in view of Fukuoka (WO 2019013042) as applied to claim 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Toyomura (US Pub. No. 2016/0346902).
Regarding claim 11, Yu modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 7-8, but appears to be silent wherein the filler-removal module comprises: a buff-process component configured to finish-polish to the upper surface of the laminated substrate that has been polished, the buff-process component comprises: a buff head to which the buff pad for executing a buff process to the upper surface of the laminated substrate is mounted; and a buff arm configured to hold the buff head so as to allow the buff head to swing in a radial direction of the laminated substrate.
Toyomura is also concern in providing a substrate processing apparatus (Figures 1-6 and see also paragraph 0035) comprising a buff-process component (Figure 1 elements 500/502/600) configured to finish-polish to the upper surface of the laminated substrate that has been polished (The examiner indicates that the laminated substrate and any associated (upper surface) have not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention (i.e. substrate processing apparatus). Furthermore, the prior art discloses in paragraph 0035 the buffing apparatus of Figure 1 is “utilized for a finishing process after primary polishing in the CMP apparatus”, and giving that there is no additional structure provided or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the buff-process component finish-polish the upper surface of the laminated substrate that has been polished, as recited.), the buff-process component comprises: a buff head (element 500) to which the buff pad (element 502) for executing a buff process to the upper surface of the laminated substrate is mounted (The examiner indicates that the laminated substrate and any associated (upper surface) have not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention (i.e. substrate processing apparatus). Furthermore, the prior art discloses in paragraph 0039 utilizing the buffing head 500 attached with a buffing pad 502 for “buffing a processed face of the wafer”, and giving that there is no additional structure provided or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of executing a buff process to the upper surface of the laminated substrate is mounted, as recited.); and a buff arm (element 600) configured to hold the buff head so as to allow the buff head to swing in a radial direction of the laminated substrate (see figure 1 and see also paragraphs 0039/0044).
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 Yu to incorporate the teachings of Toyomura to provide wherein the filler-removal module comprises: a buff-process component configured to finish-polish to the upper surface of the laminated substrate that has been polished, the buff-process component comprises: a buff head to which the buff pad for executing a buff process to the upper surface of the laminated substrate is mounted; and a buff arm configured to hold the buff head so as to allow the buff head to swing in a radial direction of the laminated substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding an additional processing device in the form of the buff-process component would necessarily provide a finishing process after primary polishing which removes stains on a surface of the substrate as disclosed by Toyomura (see paragraphs 0035/0038).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 110854039) in view of Fukuoka (WO 2019013042) as applied to claim 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Nakamura (US Pub. No. 2014/0242779).
Regarding claim 12, Yu modified discloses: wherein the filler-application module includes:
an application module configured to apply the filler into the gap in the laminated substrate (see paragraph 0038-0039 where the prior art discloses the filler-application module (element 101) comprises “a dispensing module” used to inject “a fluid adhesive” (filler) into the gap (see figure 4)); and
a curing module configured to cure the filler applied by the application module (see paragraph 0038-0039 where the prior art discloses the filler-application module (element 101) comprises “a curing module” used to cure the injected adhesive (filler)).
However, Yu modified appears to be silent wherein the filler-application module includes a rotary-holding mechanism configured to hold the laminated substrate in a vertical state and the application module configured to apply the filler into the gap in the laminated substrate above the laminated substrate held by the rotary-holding mechanism.
Nakamura is also concern in providing a filler-application module (Figures 7A-8B and see also paragraph 0047) comprising an application module (element 31) configured to apply the filler (element 3) into the gap of substrates (see figure 7B) and a curing module (element 32) configured to cure the filler applied by the application module (see paragraph 004). Nakamura further teaches a rotary-holding mechanism (element 410) configured to hold the laminated substrate in a vertical state (see figure 7B) and the application module configured to apply the filler into the gap in the laminated substrate above the laminated substrate held by the rotary-holding mechanism (see figure 7B).
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 Yu to incorporate the teachings of Nakamura to provide wherein the filler-application module includes a rotary-holding mechanism configured to hold the laminated substrate in a vertical state and the application module configured to apply the filler into the gap in the laminated substrate above the laminated substrate held by the rotary-holding mechanism. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a known rotary-holding mechanism will necessarily allow the user to appropriately secure the workpiece from falling and additionally apply the filler to multiple different locations while being rotated, thus enhancing the capabilities of the apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights