Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/820,758

METHOD OF MANUFACTURING WAFER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 30, 2024
Priority
Sep 15, 2023 — JP 2023-150342
Examiner
NEIBAUR, ROBERT F
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
DISCO Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allowance Rate
289 granted / 378 resolved
+16.5% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
406
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
48.4%
+8.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 378 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 08/30/2024. Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim Interpretation Note: Whenever the claims indicated inclusive (and) or alternative (or) limitations, only the alternative limitations were examined unless stated different in the rejection. Similarly, whenever the claims indicated optional limitations (e.g. “optionally"), the claim limitations were considered to be a preference and not a requirement unless stated different in the claim rejection. 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka et al (US PGPUB No. 2019/0006212) in view of Kim et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0219354) and in further view of Park et al (Korean Patent Publication No. KR20130044891) as evidenced by the machine translation of Park, hereinafter referred to as Iizuka, Kim, and Park, respectively. Regarding claim 1, Iizuka discloses a method of manufacturing a wafer from a workpiece [Iizuka, page 1, pp 0006 and figs 12A, 170] that has a first surface [Iizuka, figs 12A, 172], a second surface positioned opposite the first surface [Iizuka, figs 12A, 174], and a side surface joined to an outer peripheral edge of the first surface and an outer peripheral edge of the second surface [Iizuka, figs 12A, 180], the method comprising: a first grinding step of grinding the first surface of the workpiece while holding the workpiece on a first holding table [Iizuka, page 2, pp 0034, 4 which has grinding means 16, grinds the top surface of the workpiece and page 9, pp 0069, 172 is planarized] such that the second surface faces the first holding table and the first surface is exposed [Iizuka, fig 3, 170 is held by table 14 by bottom surface 174 such that the top surface 172 is exposed]; after the first grinding step, a second grinding step of grinding the second surface of the workpiece [Iizuka, page 9, pp 0069, 174 is planarized]; after the second grinding step, a peel-off layer [Iizuka, figs 14A-15B, 190] forming step of forming in the workpiece a peel-off layer that includes modified layers and cracks developed from the modified layers [Iizuka, page 10, pp 0075, 186 and 188], by positioning a focused spot of a laser beam having a wavelength transmittable through the workpiece in the workpiece at a predetermined depth corresponding to a thickness of the wafer to be manufactured from the workpiece [Iizuka, fig 14A, 62] and moving the focused spot and the workpiece relatively to each other in a predetermined direction perpendicular to a thicknesswise direction of the workpiece [Iizuka, page 10 , pp 0075, and figs 14A-14B, 186 and 188 are formed by LB at the FP]; and after the peel-off layer forming step, a peeling step of peeling off the wafer from the workpiece along the peel-off layer that acts as peel-off initiating points [Iizuka, page 11, pp’s 0086-0087]. Iizuka does not explicitly disclose the first and second surfaces (of the ingot workpiece) containing warpage; and holding the workpiece on the first holding table by gripping and securing the side surface of the workpiece with at least two fixing members of the first holding table without holding the second surface under suction on the first holding table. Regarding the first and second surfaces (of the ingot workpiece) containing warpage, Kim teaches a method of manufacturing a wafer from a workpiece that has a first surface [Kim, page 1, pp 0012, wafer from the ingot], a second surface positioned opposite the first surface, and a side surface joined to an outer peripheral edge of the first surface and an outer peripheral edge of the second surface [Kim, fig 2, 100, which has top surface 110 and bottom surface 120 and side surface of the main body 121], the first and second surfaces containing warpage [Hirata, fig 2, showing 100 has warpage and page 1, pp 0012, teaching that the ingot to produce wafers has warpage], wherein the method comprising a measuring step of measuring bending in an ingot [Kim, page 1, pp 0012]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the method of Iizuka to work upon an ingot with warpage as taught by Kim because the object of Iizuka is to produce a wafer from an ingot automatically [Iizuka, page 1, pp 0006, summarized] such that it becomes necessary to work with real workpieces, which means knowing and understanding the flaws in the workpieces, including bending or warpage, and therefore by combining the methods of Iizuka and Kim, in that Iizuka also includes a step of measuring the bending of an ingot that contains warpage, so that the object of Iizuka can be achieved with a wide range of workpieces and not merely ideal workpieces. Regarding holding the workpiece, Park teaches a method of clamping a workpiece [Park, abstract, ingot] that has a first surface, a second surface positioned opposite the first surface, and a side surface joined to an outer peripheral edge of the first surface and an outer peripheral edge of the second surface [Park, fig 7, showing 1 has a top surface, bottom surface and side surface between the top and bottom surface], the method comprising: holding the workpiece on a first holding table [Park, fig 7, 1 is held in place by 110], such that the second surface faces the first holding table and the first surface is exposed [Park, figs 2 and 7, showing that the bottom surface is face down and the top surface is exposed], by gripping and securing the side surface of the workpiece with at least two fixing members of the first holding table without holding the second surface under suction on the first holding table [Park, fig 7, showing that 1 is gripped by 130 on the side surface and fig 2, showing at least two grippers 130]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the first holding table of Iizuka for the first holding table as taught by Park because this clamping arrangement ensures that the ingot does not detach or shake and is fully secured [Park, pages 3-4, pp 0005, summarized], and further allows for the processing of an ingot of various diameters using a single device and ensuring that the center of the ingot is aligned [Park, page 7, pp 0027, summarized]. Regarding claim 2, Iizuka as modified further discloses the method of manufacturing a wafer according to claim 1, wherein the second grinding step includes holding the first surface that has been ground in the first grinding step under suction on a holding surface of a second holding table such that the second surface is exposed [Iizuka, page 9, pp 0069, 174 is planarized and page 2, pp’s 0034-0035 teaching that there are multiple tables, where between these two paragraphs, it is understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that both sides of the ingot are planarized and that at least a table includes the suction to hold the ingot]. Regarding claim 3, Iizuka as modified further discloses the method of manufacturing a wafer according to claim 1, wherein the first surface that is exposed in the first grinding step has protruding warpage [Kim, fig 2, showing the ingot has warpage or bending 111], and the first grinding step includes reducing the warpage of the first surface by grinding the first surface [Iizuka, page 2, pp 0034, 4 which has grinding means 16, grinds the top surface of the workpiece and page 9, pp 0069, 172 is planarized and in the combination, 16 of Iizuka grinds the top surface of Kim 110 to reduce 111]. Regarding claim 4, Iizuka as modified further discloses the method of manufacturing a wafer according to claim 1, further comprising: before the peel-off layer forming step, a planarizing step of reducing surface roughness of one, to be irradiated with the laser beam in the peel-off layer forming step, of the first surface that has been ground in the first grinding step or the second surface that has been ground in the second grinding step [Iizuka, page 16, pp 0111 and page 17, claim 1, teaching that the grinding unit is used for both grinding and planarizing and this happens all before the peel-off layer forming step]. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 30, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12703056
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR APPLYING A UNIFORM TEXTURE TO AN AGGREGATE SURFACE
4y 9m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12703065
Clamp for Laser Level Detector
4y 2m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12703063
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 11m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12697699
RETAINER, TOP RING, AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS
3y 1m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12691547
CMP INNER RING IN SMART HEAD
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.3%)
2y 10m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 378 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month