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 . 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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
-Claim 10, Line 9 provides “moving the inspected strip to to the storage and should read “moving the inspected strip to the storage” to remove duplicate language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Negishi (US2008/0102542).
Regarding claim 1, Negishi teaches a semiconductor package cutting system (1)(Figure 1) comprising:
a cutting device including a chuck table (20a,20b) and a cutting unit (30a, 30b) for partial-cutting at least a portion of a strip comprising a plurality of semiconductor packages (Figure 2 Paragraphs 0022-0025);
an inspection device including rails (5,5a) and an inspection table (4) for placing a first strip or a second strip therein and moving the first strip along a first direction wherein the inspection device is mounted behind the cutting device to supply the first strip to be cut to the cutting device and to receive and inspect the second strip cut by the cutting device (Paragraphs 0021-0022); and
a storage device including an elevator (2,6,7) and a pusher (3), wherein the storage device is mounted behind the inspection device to supply the first strip stored therein, to the inspection device and to receive and store the second strip inspected by the inspection device (Figures 1-2 and Paragraphs 0019-0021).
Regarding claim 2, Negishi teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 1, wherein the inspection device further comprises: a vision unit (72a,72b) mounted on a path of the inspection table to inspect a cut depth of the second strip; and wherein the rails are configured to place thereon the first strip supplied from the storage device or the second strip received from the inspection table (Paragraphs 0029-0030).
Regarding claim 3, Negishi teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 2, wherein the storage device is mounted on a rear portion of the inspection device, and wherein the rails extend in the first direction toward the storage device (Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Negishi teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 2, wherein the storage device is mounted on a side portion of the inspection device, and wherein the rails extend in a second direction toward the storage device (Figures 1 and 2; noting the storage device is mounted in a corner of base 8 as seen in Figure 1 thus a “side portion” of the overall inspection device, and the rails extend in multiple directions, one of which is a direction towards the storage device).
Regarding claim 9, Negishi teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 2, wherein the storage device stores the first or second strip in a direction corresponding to a direction in which the rails extend (Figure 1 noting the rails and storage device both extend in the “Y” direction).
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 5-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negishi (US2008/0102542) in view of Terada (US2022/0040878).
Regarding claim 5, Negishi teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 4, but does not provide wherein the inspection table is rotatable about a third direction to rotate the first or second strip placed thereon.
Terada teaches it is known in the art of semiconductor cutting to incorporate a movement unit for a table that rotates the table to maneuver the workpiece as desired (Paragraph 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Negishi to incorporate the teachings of Terada to provide the table as a rotating table. In doing so, it allows for movement of the workpiece as desired.
Regarding claim 6, Negishi teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 1, wherein the inspection table comprises: a first inspection table (4) for placing the first strip thereon when the first strip is supplied, and being movable back and forth in the first direction, however Negishi does not provide a second inspection table for placing the second strip thereon when the second strip is received.
Negishi does note it is preferable to have multiple chuck tables to increase overall productivity (Paragraph 0053).
Terada teaches it is known in the art of semiconductor cutting to incorporate a sub-table (26) including first and second inspection table (19,21) (Figure 1 adjacent chuck tables (26) of the cutting device (Paragraphs 0056-0058; 0141-0143).
In light of Negishi and Terada, modifying the device with any reasonable number secondary tables with movable inspection tables, would be a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Negishi to incorporate the teachings of having duplicate components to increase productivity. In doing so, it allows for multiple inspection tables to prepare multiple workpieces to increase productivity.
Regarding claim 10, Negishi teaches a semiconductor package cutting method comprising:
(a) moving a strip supplied (W) from a storage device (2,3,6,7) and placed on rails (5a) of an inspection device (), to a cutting device (20a,20b,30a,30b)
(b) partial-cutting at least a portion of the strip by using the cutting device (Figures 1-2; Paragraph 0004, 0024, 0028);
(c) after the partial cutting, moving the cut strip to the inspection device and inspecting a cut depth (Paragraph 0023, 0029-0030,0037); and
(d) moving the inspected strip to the storage and storing the inspected strip therein (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0021).
Negishi does not specifically provide moving an inspection table of the inspection device (Figure 1 and paragraphs 0023, 0029-0030 and 0038-0044 noting the chuck table provides suction of the workpiece W to the chuck table and images simultaneously).
Terada teaches it is known in the art of semiconductor cutting to incorporate a sub-table (26) including first and second inspection table (19,21) (Figure 1 adjacent chuck tables (26) of the cutting device wherein the inspection tables are capable of being cut (Paragraphs 0056-0058; 0141-0143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Negishi to incorporate the teachings of Terada to have a moveable inspection table. In doing so, it allows for multiple inspection tables to prepare multiple workpieces to increase productivity.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negishi (US2008/0102542) in view of Terada (US 2019/0358757).
Regarding claim 7, Negishi teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 1, the chuck table is configured to fix the first or second strip (Figures 1-2 and Paragraph 0022-0025 noting the workpiece is fixed via suction)
wherein the cutting unit comprises a replaceable blade (33a,33b) to partial-cut at least a portion of the first strip fixed to the chuck table (Figures 1-2 and Paragraph 0032 noting both blades are replaceable).
Negishi does not provide wherein the cutting device further comprises a cleaning unit for cleaning a surface or another surface of the second strip cut by the cutting device.
Terada teaches a cutting device further comprises a cleaning unit (70) for cleaning a surface or another surface of the second strip cut by the cutting device (Figures 1, Paragraph 0065, 0067-0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Negishi to incorporate the teachings of Terada to have a cleaning unit. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece to be cleaned as desired after cutting.
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Negishi teaches the semiconductor package cutting system of claim 7, wherein the cutting device further comprises a strip picker (80) for moving the strip positioned on one of the chuck table, the cutting unit, the cleaning unit, and the inspection table to another (Terada Figure 8; Paragraph 0068-0071).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-B,D-E on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of cutting systems for semiconductors, including specifics for cutting tools, inspecting the workpiece before and after cutting as well as components/drives to move individual parts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 09/04/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 09/04/2026
Prosecution Insights