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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 07/23/2024. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2017071074) as evidenced by the machine translation of Suzuki, in view of Martinez et al (US PGPUB No. 2004/0144487), hereinafter referred to as Suzuki and Martinez, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a substrate processing method for processing a substrate, comprising:
radiating a laser beam to a substrate [Suzuki, fig 1, G radiates B onto 10] to form a periphery modification layer annularly along a boundary between a peripheral portion and a central portion of the substrate [Suzuki, fig 6, 28 from s between 22 and 24 annularly];
radiating a laser beam to the substrate to form a divided modification layer elongating diametrically outward of the peripheral modification layer [Suzuki, fig 6, showing that 28 includes an elongated diametrically outward divided modification layer to separate 22 into at least two halves];
removing the peripheral portion by dividing the peripheral portion into a plurality of fragments using the divided modification layer while separating the peripheral portion, starting from the periphery modification layer formed on the first substrate [Suzuki, fig 6, showing that 22 is divided into two halves].
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose a first substrate in a combined substrate, in which the first substrate and a second substrate are bonded to each other.
Martinez teaches a substrate processing method for processing a substrate, comprising:
in a first substrate [Martinez, fig 2a, 20a] in a combined substrate [Martinez, fig 2a, 20], in which the first substrate and a second substrate are bonded to each other [Martinez, fig 2a, 20 which has the first substrate 20a and a second substrate 20b], a periphery modification layer is formed within the first substrate [Martinez, fig 2a, 202]; and removing the peripheral portion [Martinez, page 4, pp 0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the combined substrate of Martinez within the apparatus of Suzuki such that the apparatus of Suzuki operates the laser to form the peripheral modification layer on the combined substrate because per MPEP 2143(I)(B) the substitution of elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case, that is the substation of the workpiece of the combined wafer of Martinez for the workpiece of Suzuki, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In the substitution each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the apparatus of Suzuki would be able to work on the wafer of Martinez as well.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki as modified further discloses the substrate processing method of claim 1, further comprising: grinding the first substrate in the combined substrate after the peripheral portion has been removed [Suzuki, page 3, pp 0003].
Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2017071074) as evidenced by the machine translation of Suzuki, in view of Martinez et al (US PGPUB No. 2004/0144487), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Deguchi et al (US PGPUB No. 2014/0251546), hereinafter referred to as Suzuki, Martinez, and Deguchi, respectively.
Regarding claims 2-3, Suzuki as modified further discloses the substrate method of claim 1, and wherein the removing of the peripheral portion comprises rotating the combined substrate to remove the peripheral portion [Suzuki, page 16, pp 0019].
However, Suzuki as modified does not explicitly disclose the removing of the peripheral portion comprises: inserting a knife-shaped insertion member having a sharp pointed tip into an interface between the first substrate and the second substrate (clm 2); wherein the peripheral portion is removed by applying an ultrasonic wave to the peripheral portion (clm 3).
Deguchi teaches a substrate processing method for processing a substrate, comprising:
removing a peripheral portion of a substrate by separating the substrate by inserting a knife-shaped insertion member having a sharp pointed tip into an interface between the first substrate and the second substrate [Deguchi, fig 4b, 191 is inserted between S and W of combined substrate T] (clm 2); wherein the peripheral portion is removed by applying an ultrasonic wave to the peripheral portion [Deguchi, page 7, pp 0128] (clm 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and the method of Suzuki to include the knife-shaped ultrasonic member to separate the substrate as taught by Deguchi such that the peripheral portion of Suzuki is separated by the knife-shape ultrasonic member because this configuration allows efficient removal and allows for the reduction of the possibility that the target substrate (which holds the chips) is not contacted [Deguchi, page 9, pp’s 0146-0147] which is beneficial to the apparatus of Suzuki because this would allow the apparatus of Suzuki to efficiently the peripheral portions while maintaining the integrity of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki further discloses the substrate processing method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: after the removing of the peripheral portion, checking whether or not the peripheral portion has been removed from the first substrate by a detection unit.
Deguchi teaches a substrate processing method for processing a substrate, comprising:
removing a peripheral portion of a substrate by separating the substrate [Deguchi, fig 4b, 191 is inserted between S and W of combined substrate T], after the removing of the peripheral portion, checking whether or not the peripheral portion has been removed from the first substrate by a detection unit [Deguchi, page 8, pp’s 0140-0141].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Suzuki to include the checking if the removal happened of the elements desired to be removed as taught by Deguchi because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the confirmation unit and checking method as taught by Deguchi in the system of Suzuki, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the confirmation unit and checking method as taught by Deguchi in the system of Suzuki because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being confirmation unit to be used to check for the removal of elements. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of using the confirmation unit of Deguchi to check to see if the peripheral portions of Suzuki is removed.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki further discloses the substrate processing method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the removing of the peripheral portion, an ionizer is operated to suppress electrostatic charging.
Deguchi teaches a substrate processing method for processing a substrate, comprising:
removing a peripheral portion of a substrate by separating the substrate [Deguchi, fig 4b, 191 is inserted between S and W of combined substrate T]; wherein, in the removing of the peripheral portion, an ionizer is operated to suppress electrostatic charging [Deguchi, page 6, pp 0101, teaches an electrostatic chuck is used].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the electrostatic chuck of Deguchi with the apparatus of Suzuki because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the electrostatic chuck as taught by Deguchi in the system of Suzuki, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the electrostatic chuck as taught by Deguchi in the system of Suzuki because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the apparatus to remove the peripheral portion of the substrate as taught by Suzuki and the electrostatic chuck of Deguchi. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the electrostatic chuck would hold the substrate while the device of Suzuki would remove the peripheral portion of the substrate as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki further discloses the substrate processing method of claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: cleaning a ground surface of the first substrate as well as the second substrate after the grinding of the first substrate.
Deguchi teaches a substrate processing method for processing a substrate, comprising:
removing a peripheral portion of a substrate by separating the substrate [Deguchi, fig 4b, 191 is inserted between S and W of combined substrate T]; further comprising: cleaning a ground surface of the first substrate as well as the second substrate after the grinding of the first substrate [Deguchi, page 3, pp 0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a cleaning station and cleaning of the substrate as taught by Deguchi in the apparatus of Suzuki because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the cleanings step as taught by Deguchi in the method of Suzuki, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the cleaning station and cleaning step as taught by Deguchi in the system and method of Suzuki because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the cleaning station and cleaning step within the peripheral portion removal method and backgrinding of Suzuki. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the combined substrate would be cleaned after being ground.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2017071074) as evidenced by the machine translation of Suzuki, in view of Martinez et al (US PGPUB No. 2004/0144487), in further view of Deguchi et al (US PGPUB No. 2014/0251546), as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Stumpf (US PGPUB No. 2015/0170958) hereinafter referred to as Suzuki, Martinez, Deguchi, and Stumpf, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki as modified further discloses the substrate processing method of claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: wet-etching the ground surface of the first substrate with a chemical solution after the cleaning of the ground surface of the first substrate as well as the second substrate.
Stumpf teaches a substrate processing method for processing a substrate, comprising:
cleaning a surface of a substrate [Stumpf, page 5, pp 0053]; and wet-etching the surface of the substrate with a chemical solution after the cleaning of the surface of the substrate [Stumpf, page 5, pp 0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the wet-etching step of Stumpf within the method of Suzuki as modified because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the wet-etching step as taught by Stumpf in the system of Suzuki, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wet-etching step as taught by Stumpf in the system of Suzuki because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the wet-etching step of Stumpf and the cleaning step of Suzuki as modified. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of after the substrate is cleaned, the substrate is then wet-etched for further processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights