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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/29/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is run-on sentence and worded throughout making it confusion what is actually being disclosed, and also, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because that is not what the claimed invention is drawn to (see the scope of claims 1-4). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification (36 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-4 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.
The scope of Claim 1 is unclear since this invention is a method claim, from this preamble, it appears Applicant is seeking protection for the method by itself, without a grinding apparatus. However, in the claim body, the first paragraph recites structures of the grinding apparatus. There are two lines of thought on this;
One is that claim should be interpreted as a method that includes a step of providing a grinding apparatus (including all of structures), which is seemingly not what the preamble and the claim body suggests.
Two is that it is not a combination (a method only), but then it is not clear what structural scope to give the language in the body of the claim (first paragraph). A verification is required. If claim would include the grinding machine, in the claim body, should be included a first step such as – providing a grinding apparatus including…;
….--
Claim 1, line 3 “that is rotatable…” is unclear whether the “that” refers to the chuck table, the wafer, or the holding surface.
Claim 1, line 7 “supporting thereon…” is unclear whether the “supporting thereon” refers to the distal end of the spindle or the grinding wheel.
Claim 1, lines 9-10 “a radius” is unclear what the radius” refers to.
Claim 1, the second paragraph “a holding step of holding the wafer on the holding surface of the chuck table…thereof being exposed” is unclear. First, it is unclear what and how the wafer is being held on the chuck table. If an art has a wafer on the table, it meets this limitation, right? Second, it is unclear whether the “thereof being exposed” refers to the reverse side or the opposite side of the wafer.
Claim 1, in the 3rd paragraph “after the holding step, a first grinding step of grinding the reverse side of the wafer…” is unclear (since the holding step is unclear) and it appears missing an intermediate step for flipping the wafer on the chuck table. In the 2nd paragraph the reverse side of the wafer is held on the holding surface of the chuck table and looking at the Figure 1, the grinding wheel 56 is positioned on a top of the chuck table. It is unclear how the first grinding step of grinding the reverse side of the wafer (since the reverse side of the wafer is held or faced on the table). Is there any intermediate step (flipping the wafer after the holding step)? Thus, it is unclear.
Claim 1, the language “whose” is unclear what or who the “whose” refers to. Also, it is unclear what is “a first recess whose bottom” refers to.
Claim 2 “…a cleaning step of cleaning the bottom of the first recess” is unclear how and what the bottom of the first recess is cleaned. If the art is tilted or rotated the chuck table that cause some dust or particles expelled from the recess, it is that meets this limitation, right? See the scope of claim 3 that is one of the example of cleaning, right?
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 2021/0291316).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Suzuki teaches a method of grinding a wafer (Figures 1 and 3A, B), wherein the method comprises:
a providing step of providing a grinding apparatus (see Figure 1) including a chuck table (6, Figure 1) including a holding surface (6c) rotatable about a first rotational axis passing through a center of the holding surface (see the rotation shaft 8 and see the lower rotation arrow), a spindle (14e) rotatable about a second rotational axis (see the upper rotation arrow), and a grinding wheel (18) mounted on a distal end of the spindle and wherein the grinding wheel includes an annular array of grindstones (18c) disposed at spaced intervals (on the grinding wheel), the wafer (21 or 11) having a face side (11a) with a plurality of devices (15) formed thereon and
wherein a radius (of the wafer) is longer than an outside diameter of a track (of the spindle) to be followed by a grinding surface of each of the grindstones when the spindle is rotated (see Figure 12A);
a holding step of holding the face side of the wafer on the holding surface of the chuck table (by a porous plate 6b having a suction, Figure 3A) such that a reverse side of the wafer (side 11b opposite the face side or a front side 11a) being exposed (see Figure 3A);
after the holding step, a first grinding step of grinding the reverse side of the wafer by keeping a center of the wafer and the track superposed on each other in a predetermined direction while rotating the chuck table and the spindle respectively about the first rotational axis and the second rotational axis (see Figure 3B and Para. 4 “after the holding step, an oblique grinding step of rotating the grinding wheel about the central axis of a second rotational shaft…”), and moving the chuck table and the spindle closer to each other in the predetermined direction to bring the grindstones into abrasive contact with the reverse side of the wafer (see Para. 4 “ then moving the grinding wheel and the chuck table relatively to each other to bring the grinding wheel and the chuck table closer to each other along a direction parallel to the first rotational shaft”);
after the first grinding step (the oblique grinding step, Figure 3A), a separating step of spacing the chuck table and the spindle from each other in a direction opposite the predetermined direction to separate the grindstones and the reverse side of the wafer from each other (see Figure 5 the dash line of the grindstones 23 or see the gap 23 that causes spacing the chuck table and the spindle from each other);
after the separating step, an adjusting step of adjusting a tilt of at least one of the chuck table or the spindle (see Figure 5 and Para. 35 “the spindle 14e is tilted the predetermined angle θ with respect to the output shaft 8”) to change an angle formed between the first rotational axis and the second rotational axis (see the step S40); and
after the adjusting step, a second grinding step (after the tilting changing and grinding, Paras. 37-39) of grinding the reverse side of the wafer by keeping the center of the wafer and the track superposed on each other in the predetermined direction while rotating the chuck table and the spindle respectively about the first rotational axis and the second rotational axis, and moving the chuck table and the spindle closer to each other in the predetermined direction to bring the grindstones into abrasive contact with the reverse side of the wafer, wherein the first grinding step includes forming a first recess whose bottom is of a shape represented by a side surface of an inverted cone in the reverse side of the wafer (Figures 4A, B) , and the second grinding step includes forming a second recess whose bottom is of a circular shape in the reverse side of the wafer (see the ordinary grinding step S50, Para. 40 and see a circular portion 11c2 in Figure 8).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki teaches after the separating step (adjusting or tilting) and before the second grinding step, a position adjusting step of moving the chuck table and the spindle toward or away from each other in a direction perpendicular to the predetermined direction (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Sekiya (US 2008/0045015).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki teaches all of the limitations as stated above except that after the separating step and before the second grinding step, a cleaning step of cleaning the bottom of the first recess.
Sekiya teaches a cleaning step for cleaning a recess from a grinding step (see a cleaning step after grinding operation and Figures 6A-6C and Para. 41 “pure water as a cleaning liquid used after etching” and Paras. 11-12 discusses repeating this cleaning step on each grinding or etching step).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had a cleaning step, as taught by Sekiya to the method of Suzuki, in order to allow cleaning a recess from each grinding or etching step (see Paras. 11-13 of Sekiya).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of Suzuki teaches after the separating step (adjusting or tilting) and before the second grinding step, a position adjusting step of moving the chuck table and the spindle toward or away from each other in a direction perpendicular to the predetermined direction (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shinji (JP 2010194680 A and Translation) teaches a grinding process and applying a cleaning process of grinding a wafer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 8/9/2026
Prosecution Insights