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 August 20th, 2024 was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, but disclosed in the secondary reference(s)
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priewasser (US 20210035846 A1; hereinafter Priewasser) in view of Mihai et al. (US 20190109023 A1; hereinafter Mihai).
Regarding claim 1, Priewasser teaches a breaking method for dividing, along a division line ([0126], plurality of division lines), a wafer having division starting points formed along the division line ([0140] and [0142], alignment marks formed of specific division lines to be inspected and aligned before the start of processing), comprising:
a protective sheet arrangement step of arranging, on a side of a front surface of the wafer, a protective sheet that has a front surface and back surface formed flat and is free of any glue layer (Fig. 1: protective film 8 with front side 12 and back side 14 stated that the entire front or back surface is free of adhesive; [0241] and [0245]);
an alignment step of, after performing the protective sheet arrangement step (Fig. 2: alignment with inspection device 22; [0268]),
capturing an image of the front surface of the wafer from a side of the protective sheet and conducting position matching between the division line and a pressing member; and
a dividing step of, after performing the alignment step, dividing the wafer along the division line by pressing the pressing member against the wafer along the division line.
However, Priewasser also teaches in paragraph 263, that the inspection device is a camera, but is silent to the specifics of how the alignment is done, and in paragraph 174, that the process of dividing may be a breaking process, “applying an external force to the substrate”, but is silent to the specific pressing member performing the breaking process.
However, Mihai teaches the following limitations not explicitly taught by Priewasser:
capturing an image of the front surface of the wafer from a side of the protective sheet (Fig. 1: “detecting unit 55 includes an optical system and an image capturing device”, which allows for the capturing of images and is adjustable in the Y and Z axis and can be adjusted with respect to the workpiece W to capture from either side, the detecting unit may detect projected dicing lines L from above or below the workpiece W; [0033] and [0047])
and conducting position matching between the division line and a pressing member (Fig. 4B: workpiece W is aligned with the dicing line L detected by the detecting unit 55 and the position of the presser 21 with depressing member 36 which is relative to the holders 23 and 24; [0036]) and
a dividing step of, after performing the alignment step, dividing the wafer along the division line by pressing the pressing member against the wafer along the division line (Fig. 4C: presser 21 is lowered to bend the workpiece W and divide it at the projected dicing line L; [0080]).
Mihai also teaches in paragraph 47 and 50, that cracks may appear on the workpiece W due to the modified layers, and that the detecting units 55 are used to detect not only the projected dicing lines L, but also can identify the cracks, and to prevent chippings from being produced from the edges of the chips.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the processing method of Priewasser with the aligning and breaking process of Mihai in order to, reduce errors in the breaking process by breaking the lines by detecting cracks in the wafer and adjusting the alignment of the pressing device to avoid breaking the wafer along those cracks and cause chippings in the edges of the divided chips.
Regarding claim 3, Priewasser does not explicitly teach the breaking method according to claim 1, wherein,
In the dividing step, the wafer is held from above and below thereof by a pair of holding members in a region adjacent to the division line, and at the same time,
the wafer is pressed from the side of the protective sheet by the pressing member in another region adjacent to the division line on an opposite side to the paired holding members with
the division line interposed between the other region and the paired holding members, whereby the wafer is divided along the division line.
However, Mihai teaches the following limitations not disclosed by Priewasser:
In the dividing step, the wafer is held from above and below thereof by a pair of holding members in a region adjacent to the division line (Fig. 4C: first holder 23 is disposed directly below second holder 24 beneath workpiece W and are placed at a position on one side of the projected dicing line L; [0037]), and at the same time,
the wafer is pressed from the side of the protective sheet by the pressing member in another region adjacent to the division line on an opposite side to the paired holding members (Fig. 4C: pressor 21 with depressing member 36 is positioned in the region on the other side of the projected dicing line L of the holders 23 and 24; [0036]) with
the division line interposed between the other region and the paired holding members, whereby the wafer is divided along the division line (Fig. 4C: holding members 23 and 24 are on opposing sides of projected dicing line L, and is pressed down by depressing member 36, which divided the workpiece W along line L; [0036] and [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Priewasser with the method of breaking of Mihai to both hold the wafer steady and protect the wafer during the breaking process, aligning the holding members on one side of the division line with the pressing member on the other ensures a more efficient break.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priewasser in view of Mihai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobashi (WO 2020116284 A1; hereinafter Kobashi).
Regarding claim 2, Priewasser does not explicitly teach the breaking method according to claim 1, wherein the protective sheet contains an antistatic agent.
However, Kobashi teaches wherein the protective sheet contains an antistatic agent (Fig. 1: protective film forming composite sheet 101 has an antistatic layer 17; page 157, [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the protective film of Priewasser with the antistatic layer of Kobashi in order to prevent static electricity from affecting the device during the breaking process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN HOANG TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0290. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/BENJAMIN HOANG TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights