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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 4, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 14, “a lamination tape” should be “the lamination tape”; and
On line 15, “target substrate” should be “semiconductor substrate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0121008 A1 (Mori).
Regarding claim 1, Mori discloses, A laminating device (laminating device (98); FIG. 6; [0083]) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
595
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a substrate support (substrate support (70); FIG. 6; [0070]) on which a target substrate (target substrate (4); FIG 2A; [0052]) is disposed;
PNG
media_image2.png
398
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a guide table (guide table (44); FIG. 4; [0059]) that surrounds a circumference (circumference (20); FIG. 2A; [0052]) of the target substrate (4); and
PNG
media_image3.png
548
767
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a press roller (press roller (110); FIG. 7; [0083]) that attaches a lamination tape (lamination tape (96); FIG. 9; [0083]) by pressing the lamination tape (96) against upper surfaces (annotated FIG. 2A, above) of the target substrate (4) and the guide table (44) ([0083]),
PNG
media_image4.png
461
651
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the guide table (44) includes a plurality of vacuum holes (vacuum holes (46); FIG. 4; [0060]-[0061]) that adsorb the lamination tape (96).1
Regarding claim 2, Mori discloses, The laminating device (98) of claim 1, wherein the press roller (110) presses an upper surface (annotated FIG. 9, above) of the lamination tape (96) while moving in a first direction (Y-axis Direction; annotated FIG. 9, above) parallel to the upper surface (annotated FIG. 2A, above) of the target substrate (4), and
the vacuum holes (46) are symmetrically arranged with respect to a reference line (annotated FIG. 4, above) that extends in the first direction (annotated FIG. 9, above) and passes through a center (annotated FIG. 4, above) of the target substrate (4).2
Regarding claim 3, Mori discloses, The laminating device (98) of claim 2, further comprising:
clamping members (clamping members (122 and 124); FIG. 6; [0091]) that clamp both sides (annotated FIG. 6, above) of the lamination tape (96) in a second direction (X-Direction) that is parallel to the upper surface (annotated FIG. 2A, above) of the target substrate (4) and crosses the first direction (Y-Direction; annotated FIG. 9, above).
Regarding claim 4, Mori discloses, The laminating device (98) of claim 3, wherein the clamping members (122 and 124) operate in conjunction with the press roller (110).3
Regarding claim 7, Mori discloses, The laminating device (98) of claim 1, wherein the upper surface (annotated FIG. 4, above) of the guide table (44) is lower than the upper surface (annotated FIG. 4, above) of the target substrate (4).
Regarding claim 11, Mori discloses, A laminating device (laminating device (98); FIG. 6; [0083]), comprising:
a substrate support (substrate support (70); FIG. 6; [0070]) on which a target substrate (target substrate (4); FIG 2A; [0052]) is disposed;
a guide table (guide table (44); FIG. 4; [0059]) that surrounds a circumference (circumference (20); FIG. 2A; [0052]) of the target substrate (4);
a press roller (press roller (110); FIG. 7; [0083]) that attaches a lamination tape (lamination tape (96); FIG. 9; [0083]) onto upper surfaces (annotated FIG. 2A) of the target substrate (4) and the guide table (44) by pressing an upper surface (annotated FIG. 9, above) of the lamination tape (96) while moving in a first (Y-axis Direction; annotated FIG. 9, above) direction parallel to the upper surface (annotated FIG. 2A, above) of the target substrate (4); and
clamping members (clamping members (122 and 124); FIG. 6; [0091]) that clamp both sides (annotated FIG. 6, above) of the lamination tape (96) in a second direction (X-Direction; FIG. 6) parallel to the upper surface (annotated FIG. 2A, above) of the target substrate (4) and that crosses the first direction (Y-Direction; FIG. 6 and annotated FIG. 9, above),
wherein
the guide table (44) includes a plurality of vacuum holes (vacuum holes (46); FIG. 4; [0060]-[0061]) that extend from the upper surface (annotated FIG. 4, above) of the guide table (44) and provide a negative pressure ([0061]), and
the clamping members (122 and 124) operate in conjunction with the press roller (110).4
Regarding claim 12, Mori discloses, The laminating device (98) of claim 11, wherein the vacuum holes (46) are symmetrically arranged with respect to a reference line (annotated FIG. 4, above) that extends in the first direction (annotated FIG. 9, above) and passes through a center (annotated FIG. 4, above) of the target substrate (4).
Regarding claim 16, Mori discloses, The laminating device (98) of claim 11, wherein the upper surface (annotated FIG. 4, above) of the guide table (44) is disposed lower than the upper surface (annotated FIG. 4, above) of the target substrate (4).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of US 2017/0106475 A1 (Mikkelsen).
Regarding claim 5, Mori discloses, The laminating device (98) of claim 1, wherein the vacuum holes (46) include a plurality of first sub-holes (plurality of first sub-holes (46); annotated FIG. 4, above; [0060]-[0061]) that are arranged along a circumference (annotated FIG. 4, above) of the guide table (44).
But, Mori does not appear to explicitly disclose, a plurality of second sub-holes that are arranged along the circumference of the target substrate.
However, in analogous art, Mikkelsen discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a guide table (guide table (170); FIG. 10, [0043]) may be predicably fabricated to include a plurality of vacuum holes (vacuum holes (180); FIG. 10; [0044]) used to hold a target substrate (target substrate (134); FIG. 14; [0032]). Mikkelsen also discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that vacuum holes (180) may be predicably fabricated to include a plurality of first sub-holes (annotated FIG. 14, below) arranged along a circumference of guide table (170) and a plurality of second sub-holes (annotated FIG. 14, below) that are arranged along a circumference of target substrate (134).
PNG
media_image5.png
581
777
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mori and Mikkelsen before him/her that the vacuum holes (46) of Mori can be predicably fabricated to include a plurality of second sub-holes that are arranged along the circumference of the target substrate (4), as taught by Mikkelsen, with no change in the vacuum holes (46) of Mori because they would still hold target substrate (4) of Mori, as additionally taught by Mikkelsen. Please see, MPEP 2143(B)—Simple Substitution Of One Known Element For Another To Obtain Predicable Results.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of US 2014/0030112 A1 (Klein).
Regarding claim 6, Mori does not appear to explicitly disclose, further comprising: a pressure sensor that detects pressure in at least some of the vacuum holes.
However, in analogous art, Klein discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a pressure sensor may be predicably utilized to detect pressure in order to maintain a desired vacuum level ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mori and Kein before him/her to include a pressure sensor that detects pressure in at least some of the vacuum holes (46) of Mori in order to maintain a desired vacuum level, as taught by Klein.
Regarding claim 13, Mori discloses, The laminating device (98) of claim 11, wherein the guide table (44) includes first and second areas (annotated FIG. 4, above) that are separate from each other in the second direction (X-Direction).
But, Mori does not appear to explicitly disclose, the laminating device further comprises a first pressure sensor that detects pressure in vacuum holes in the first area and a second pressure sensor that detects pressure in vacuum holes in the second area.
However, in analogous art, Klein discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a pressure sensor may be predicably utilized to detect pressure in order to maintain a desired vacuum level ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mori and Kein before him/her to include a first pressure sensor that detects pressure in vacuum holes (46) in the first area (annotated FIG. 4, above) of Mori to maintain a desired vacuum level, as taught by Klein, in the first area (annotated FIG. 4, above) and a second pressure sensor that detects pressure in vacuum holes (46) in the second area (annotated FIG. 4, above) of Mori to maintain a desired vacuum level, as taught by Klein, in the second area (annotated FIG. 4, above),
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of US 2016/00229684 A1 (Boysel).
Regarding claim 10, Mori does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein a height difference between the upper surface of the guide table and the upper surface of the target substrate is between 50 µm and 100 µm.
However, in analogous art, Boysel discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a MEMS wafer has a thickness between 50 and 700 µm ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mori and Boysel before him/her that a height difference between the upper surface (annotated FIG. 4, above) of the guide table (44) and the upper surface (annotated FIG. 4, above) of the target substrate (4) of Mori (which can be a wafer; [0052] of Mori) is between 50 µm and 100 µm because this recited height difference would account for the thickness of target substrate (4) which is on guide table (44) (e.g., FIG. 4) and between 50 µm and 100 µm lies inside the MEMS wafer thickness range of between 50 and 700 µm disclosed by Boysel. Please see, MPEP 2144.05(I)—In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 17, Mori does not appear to explicitly disclose, in combination with the other recited elements and limitations of claim 7, wherein a height difference between the upper surface of the guide table and the upper surface of the target substrate is between 50 µm and 100 µm.
However, in analogous art, Boysel discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a MEMS wafer has a thickness between 50 and 700 µm ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mori and Boysel before him/her that a height difference between the upper surface (annotated FIG. 4, above) of the guide table (44) and the upper surface (annotated FIG. 4, above) of the target substrate (4) of Mori (which can be a wafer; [0052] of Mori) is between 50 µm and 100 µm because this recited height difference would account for the thickness of target substrate (4) which is on guide table (44) (e.g., FIG. 4) and between 50 µm and 100 µm lies inside the MEMS wafer thickness range of between 50 and 700 µm disclosed by Boysel. Please see, MPEP 2144.05(I), above.
Allowable Subject Matter and Reasons for Allowance
Claims 8, 9, 14, 15, and 18-20 are allowed. The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 8, Mori does not appear to disclose, in combination with the other recited elements and limitations of claims 1 and 7, further comprising: an elastic member disposed below the substrate support and that is compressed by being pressed by the press roller. Therefore, claim 8 and claim 9 which depends therefrom appear to be patentable over Mori.
Regarding claim 14, Mori discloses, wherein clamping members (122 and 124) that include clamping parts (122 and 124) that clamp the lamination tape (96). But, Mori does not appear to disclose, the clamping members are fixed to the support substrate or the guide table, and driving shafts that connect the base parts and the clamping parts. Therefore, claim 14 and claim 15 which depends therefrom appear to be patentable over Mori.
Regarding claim 18, Mori does not appear to disclose, in combination with the other recited elements and limitations of claims 11 and 16, further comprising: an elastic member disposed below the substrate support and that is compressed by being pressed by the press roller. Therefore, claim 18 and claim 19 which depends therefrom appear to be patentable over Mori.
(i) Regarding claim 20, Mori discloses, A method ([0187]) of fabricating a semiconductor chip (semiconductor chip (14); FIG. 2A; [0052]), comprising:
providing a semiconductor substrate (semiconductor substrate (4); FIG 2A; [0052]) that includes first and second surfaces that are opposite each other (annotated FIG. 2A, above);
forming a semiconductor device layer (semiconductor device layer (18); FIG. 2A; [0052]) on the first surface (annotated FIG. 2A, above) of the semiconductor substrate (4);
forming a lamination tape (lamination tape (96); FIG. 9; [0083]) that covers the semiconductor device layer (18) by using a laminating device (laminating device (98); FIG. 6; [0083]);
preforming a stealth dicing process on the semiconductor substrate (4) and the semiconductor device layer; and
performing a grinding process on the second surface of the semiconductor substrate, wherein
the laminating device (98) includes a wafer table (wafer table (70); FIG. 6; [0070]) on which the semiconductor substrate (4) is disposed, a guide table (guide table (44); FIG. 4; [0059]) that surrounds a circumference (circumference (20); FIG. 2A; [0052]) of the target substrate (4), and a press roller (press roller (110); FIG. 7; [0083]) that attaches a lamination tape (96) by pressing the lamination tape (96) against an upper surface (annotated FIG. 2A, above) of the target substrate (4), and
the guide table (44) includes a plurality of vacuum holes (vacuum holes (46); FIG. 4; [0060]-[0061]) that absorb the lamination tape.
(ii) But Mori does not appear to explicitly disclose, preforming a stealth dicing process on the semiconductor substrate and the semiconductor device layer; and
performing a grinding process on the second surface of the semiconductor substrate, wherein
the press roller attaches a lamination tape by pressing the lamination tape against an upper surface of the guide table, and
the plurality of vacuum holes absorb the lamination tape.
(iii) However, in analogous art, US 2011/0086443 A1 (Kobayashi), discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that stealth dicing is an effective method for dicing in a micro region of a semiconductor substrate (11) ([0098]).
(iv) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mori and Kobayashi before him/her to perform a stealth dicing process on the semiconductor substrate (4) and the semiconductor device layer (18) of Mori, as taught by Kobayashi, to dice in a micro region of semiconductor substrate (4) of Mori, as also taught by Kobayashi.
(v) But the combination of Mori in view of as taught by Kobayashi does not appear to explicitly disclose, performing a grinding process on the second surface of the semiconductor substrate,
wherein
the press roller attaches a lamination tape by pressing the lamination tape against an upper surface of the guide table, and
the plurality of vacuum holes absorb the lamination tape.
(vi) However, in analogous art, US 2024/0112928 A1 (Lee), discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a grinding process is performed to reduce the thickness of a semiconductor substrate ([0023]).
(vii) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mori, Kobayashi, and Lee before him/her to perform a grinding process on the second surface (annotated FIG. 2A, above) of the semiconductor substrate (4) of Mori in view of Kobayashi, as taught by Lee, to reduce a thickness of semiconductor substrate (4), as also taught by Lee.
(viii) But the combination of Mori in view of Kobayashi and further in view of Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose, the press roller attaches a lamination tape by pressing the lamination tape against an upper surface of the guide table, and
the plurality of vacuum holes absorb the lamination tape. Therefore, claim 20 appears to be patentable over Mori in view of Kobayashi and further in view of Lee.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
CN 108312685 A (Su)—Discloses a laminating device (FIG. 1) having a substrate support (JG1), on which a target substrate (PN1) is disposed, a guide table (JG2) that includes a plurality of vacuum holes ((VH); FIG. 4), and press roller (RL) that attaches lamination tape (PN2) by pressing the lamination tape (PN2) against surfaces of target substrate (PN1) and guide table (JG1).
US 2022/0324218 (Li)—Discloses a laminating device (FIG. 4) having support substrates (1 and 3) on which target substrates (2 and 4) are disposed. Also discloses press rollers (501 and 502) and vacuum chambers (6 and 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
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, William B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/
Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 The recited limitations of “pressing the lamination tape against upper surfaces of the target substrate and the guide table” and “adsorb the lamination tape” are not structural limitations that differentiate claim 1 from Mori because they are functional limitations describing operation of the laminating device. Please see, MPEP 2114(II)—"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.
2 The recited limitation of “presses an upper surface of the lamination tape while moving in a first direction parallel to the upper surface of the target substrate” is a not a structural limitation that differentiates claim 2 from Mori because it is a functional limitation describing operation of the laminating device. Please see, MPEP 2114(II)—Manner Of Operating The Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim From The Prior Art.
3 The recited limitation of “clamping members operate in conjunction with the press roller” is a not a structural limitation that differentiates claim 4 from Mori because it is a functional limitation describing operation of the laminating device. Please see, MPEP 2114(II), above.
4 The recited limitations of “attaches a lamination tape onto upper surfaces of the target substrate and the guide table by pressing an upper surface of the lamination tape while moving in a first direction parallel to the upper surface of the target substrate”, “provide a negative pressure”, and “clamping members operate in conjunction with the press roller” are not structural limitations that differentiate claim 11 from Mori because they are functional limitations describing operation of the laminating device. Please see, MPEP 2114(II), above.
Prosecution Insights