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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Saeki et al. (US 2019/0304838).
Regarding claim 1, Saeki disclose preparing a wafer (101)[0041, 0101] including a plurality of functional elements disposed adjacent to each other across a street (110)(fig. 12A), the wafer having a first region (110b) in which a surface layer of the street includes an insulating film (102)(dielectric material)[0042,0101] and a second region (110a) in which the surface layer includes an insulating film and a metal structure on the insulating film (102)[0042, 0101] (fig. 12A); irradiating the street with a predetermined first laser beam (La2, first half of La2)[0102] (the examiner submits the laser beam La2 could be divided in a first half and a second half with the first half occurring before the second half [0109] disclose one or more sequences); and irradiating the street with a predetermined second laser beam(second half of La2) after irradiating the street with the predetermined first laser beam, wherein the first laser beam is a laser beam having processing energy for removing a part of the insulating film in the first region to leave another part [0107], completely removing the metal structure in the second region, and removing a part of the insulating film in the second region to leave another part in an irradiation range, (the examiner submits [0107] would read on “wherein the first laser beam is a laser beam having processing energy for removing a part of the insulating film in the first region to leave another part, completely removing the metal structure in the second region, and removing a part of the insulating film in the second region to leave another part in an irradiation range” since the clause only discloses a “processing energy” for removing part of the insulation film, completely removing the metal structure in the second region and removing a part of the insulating film in the second region, and [0107] discloses laser La2 has the energy to remove all of these layers. MPEP 2112.01 I disclose “[w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or 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)”) the second laser beam (second half of La2) is a laser beam having processing energy for completely removing the insulating film (fig. 12C) in the first region and the insulating film in the second region after irradiating the street with the predetermined first laser beam (first half of La2) in the irradiation range (fig 12C).
Regarding claim 2, Saeki disclose the second laser beam is a laser beam having processing energy for digging a part of the substrate included in the wafer (fig. 12C)[0107,0108] after the second step irradiating the street with the predetermined first laser beam.
Regarding claim 3, Saeki disclose wherein the second laser beam is a laser beam having processing energy for carving the substrate by 4 pm or less after irradiating the street with the predetermined first laser beam [0107,0108]. (Saeki [0107, 0108] disclose the process and materials for etching/digging the substrate. MPEP 2112.01 I disclose “[w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or 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)”. In this case, since Saeki [0107, 0108] disclose the process and materials for etching/digging the substrate, one would expect the process and materials to result in “the second laser beam is a laser beam having processing energy for carving substrate by 4 mm or less”.
Regarding claim 5, Saeki disclose preparing a wafer (101) [0041, 0101] including a plurality of functional elements (102,103) disposed adjacent to each other across a street (110), the wafer having a first region (110b) in which a surface layer of the street includes an insulating film and a second region (110a) in which the surface layer includes an insulating film and a metal structure on the insulating film(fig. 12A); irradiating the street with a laser beam (La2, first half of La2)[0102] to make the insulating films in the first region and the second region uneven (Saeki [0107, 0108] disclose the process and materials for etching/digging the substrate. MPEP 2112.01 I disclose “[w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or 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)” so one of ordinary skill would expect the same results).; and irradiating the street with a laser beam (La2, second half of La2)[0102] to completely removing the insulating films in the first region and the second region (fig. 12C) after the irradiating the street with the laser beam to make the insulating films in the first region and the second region uneven.
Regarding claim 6, Saeki disclose a support part (22)[0079](fig. 9)configured to support a wafer (101) [0041, 0101] including a plurality of functional elements disposed adjacent to each other across a street(110), the wafer having a first region(110b) in which a surface layer of the street includes an insulating film and a second region (110a) in which the surface layer includes an insulating film and a metal structure on the insulating film; an irradiator (optical source) [0064] configured to irradiate the street with a laser beam; and a controller (301)(fig. 5) [0064- “oscillator 301 may …controls an optical source of the laser beam L to be excited intermittently, or optically switches the laser beam L output therefrom” )configured to control the irradiator, wherein the controller is configured to execute first control of controlling the irradiator in such a manner that the street is irradiated with a predetermined first laser beam (La2, first half of La2)[0102], and second control that controls the irradiator in such a manner that the street is irradiated with a predetermined second laser beam(La2, second half of La2)[0102] after the first control, the first laser beam (La2, first half of La2)[0102, 0107, 0108] is a laser beam having processing energy for removing a part of the insulating film in the first region to leave another part, completely removing the metal structure in the second region, and removing a part of the insulating film in the second region to leave another part in an irradiation range (the examiner submits [0107] would read on “wherein the first laser beam is a laser beam having processing energy for removing a part of the insulating film in the first region to leave another part, completely removing the metal structure in the second region, and removing a part of the insulating film in the second region to leave another part in an irradiation range” since the clause only discloses a “processing energy” for removing part of the insulation film, completely removing the metal structure in the second region and removing a part of the insulating film in the second region, and [0107] discloses laser La2 has the energy to remove all of these layers. MPEP 2112.01 I disclose “[w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or 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)”), and the second laser beam (La2, second half of La2)[0102, 0107, 0108] is a laser beam having processing energy for completely removing the insulating film (fig. 12C) in the first region and the insulating film in the second region after the irradiation with the first laser beam in the irradiation range.
Regarding claim 7, Saeki disclose a support part (22)[0079](fig. 9) configured to support a wafer (101) [0041, 0101] including a plurality of functional elements disposed adjacent to each other across a street (110), the wafer having a first region (110b) in which a surface layer of the street includes an insulating film and a second region (110a) in which the surface layer includes an insulating film and a metal structure on the insulating film; an irradiator (optical source) [0064] configured to irradiate the street with a laser beam; and a controller (301)(fig. 5) [0064- “oscillator 301 may …controls an optical source of the laser beam L to be excited intermittently, or optically switches the laser beam L output therefrom” ) configured to control the irradiator, wherein the controller is configured to execute first control of controlling the irradiator in such a manner that the street is irradiated with the laser beam (La2, first half of La2)[0102] to make the insulating films in the first region and the second region uneven (Saeki [0107, 0108] disclose the process and materials for etching/digging the substrate. MPEP 2112.01 I disclose “[w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or 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)” so one of ordinary skill would expect the same results) to make the insulating films in the first region and the second region uneven, and second control of controlling the irradiator (laser) (La2, second half of La2)[0102] in such a manner that the street is irradiated with the laser beam to completely remove the insulating films (fig. 12C) in the first region and the second region after the first control.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki et al. (US 2019/0304838) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Nanjo (US 2005/0255674).
Saeki et al. disclose the invention supra.
Saeki et al. fails to disclose grinding or polishing the substrate to expose a groove formed in the street.
Nanjo disclose grinding the substrate to expose a groove formed in the street [0002].
The combination of Saeki et al. and Nanjo would disclose grinding the substrate to expose a groove formed in the street (Nanjo [0002]) by irradiation with the second laser beam (Saeki et al. La2, second half of La2, fig 12C)[0102, 0107, 0108]) after irradiating the street with the predetermined second laser beam.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (grinding a wafer with grooves), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the grinding would expose the grooves to dice the substrate).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights