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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Species 1 is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/11/2026. Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 4 and 6-7 are withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“a chamfered portion” (claim 1, line 5) should be changed to --a chamfered portion of the first wafer (for consistency, see line 6)--;
“portion removing includes” (claim 5, line 3) should be changed to --portion includes--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 3 and 5 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.
Claims 3 and 5 are indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations listed below, which render the claims unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, these limitations are interpreted as best understood.
“the other surface side of the first wafer” (claim 3, line 4) (does this refer to “another surface side” (claim 1, line 8)?);
“the other surface side of the first wafer” (claim 5, lines 4-5) (does this refer to “another surface side” (claim 1, line 8)?).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Lee
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220336221 A1 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method for processing a laminated wafer in which one surface side of a first wafer having an outer peripheral edge chamfered in an arc shape and one surface side of a second wafer are joined together (Figs. 1-7; ¶¶ 0026-0027, a method of processing a laminated wafer 11, with a first wafer 13 having an outer peripheral edge chamfered in an arc shape and a second wafer 15, where the bottom surface side of the first wafer 13 is joined with the top surface side of the second wafer 15),
the method comprising:
removing a chamfered portion by applying an external force to the chamfered portion of the first wafer and separating the chamfered portion from the first wafer (Figs. 1-7; ¶¶ 0050-0059, during the grinding step of Fig. 7, the chamfered portion (i.e., the remaining part of the chamfered portion at reference 13f in Fig. 6) is removed by the grinding wheel 34 when it arrives at or below thickness B2 (see Fig. 6), where the grinding wheel 34 exerts a downward force on the chamfered portion, thereby separating (due to the preformed cracks 13f) the chamfered portion from the first wafer 13 as shown in Fig. 7);
and grinding another surface side opposite to the one surface side of the first wafer after removing the chamfered portion (Fig. 7; ¶¶ 0054-0059, after separating the chamfered portion from the first wafer 13, the upper surface side of wafer 13 (starting at thickness B2) continues to be ground by the grinding wheel 34 moving downward until the grinding wheel 34 reaches the predetermined thickness B3).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the method of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses before removing the chamfered portion, grinding the chamfered portion with a grindstone to remove a part of the chamfered portion (Fig. 6; ¶¶ 0050-0053, before the separation of the chamfered portion from the first wafer 13, a part of the chamfered portion is ground away by grindstone 18; Examiner notes that although element 18 is referred to as a “cutting blade” in Lee, it is technically a grindstone as evidenced by its depiction in Fig. 6 and its usage in the reference (see Spec. p. 15, (“The cutting blade 51 is an ultrathin cutting grindstone”); see also US 20200391351 A1 (“Aikawa”) Fig. 1A; ¶ 0023, “annular grindstone” 1a is also described as a “cutting blade”; Lee, Aikawa, and this Application have the same Applicant)).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the method of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein removing the chamfered portion includes grinding the chamfered portion with a grindstone from the other surface side of the first wafer to separate the chamfered portion from the first wafer by a load at a time of grinding (Figs. 1-7; ¶¶ 0050-0059, during the grinding step of Fig. 7, the chamfered portion (i.e., the remaining part of the chamfered portion at reference 13f in Fig. 6) is removed by the grinding wheel 34 when it arrives at or below thickness B2 (see Fig. 6), where the grinding wheel 34 exerts a downward force on the chamfered portion, thereby separating (due to the preformed cracks 13f) the chamfered portion from the first wafer 13 as shown in Fig. 7; Examiner notes that even if the chamfered portion is removed at the instance when the grinding wheel 34 arrives at thickness B2, the chamfered portion will nevertheless be ground to some extent upon contact with the grinding wheel 34; the phrase “with a grindstone from the other surface side of the first wafer” is interpreted to mean that the grindstone approaches the first wafer from the upper surface side, opposite from its bottom, bonded side with the second wafer (see § 112(b) rejection)).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Lee in view of Kim
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220336221 A1 (“Lee”) in view of US 20210154794 A1 (“Kim”).
Lee pertains to a wafer grinding method and apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-10). Kim pertains to a wafer processing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 2-3). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the method of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein removing the chamfered portion [] includes polishing the chamfered portion with a polishing pad from the other surface side of the first wafer to separate the chamfered portion from the first wafer by a load at a time of polishing (Figs. 1-7; ¶¶ 0050-0059, during the grinding step of Fig. 7, the chamfered portion (i.e., the remaining part of the chamfered portion at reference 13f in Fig. 6) is removed by the grinding wheel 34 when it arrives at or below thickness B2 (see Fig. 6), where the grinding wheel 34 exerts a downward force on the chamfered portion, thereby separating (due to the preformed cracks 13f) the chamfered portion from the first wafer 13 as shown in Fig. 7; Examiner notes that even if the chamfered portion is removed at the instance when the grinding wheel 34 arrives at thickness B2, the chamfered portion will nevertheless be ground to some extent upon contact with the grinding wheel 34; the phrase “with a grindstone from the other surface side of the first wafer” is interpreted to mean that the grindstone approaches the first wafer from the upper surface side, opposite from its bottom, bonded side with the second wafer (see § 112(b) rejection); see discussion below re “polishing” and “polishing pad”).
Lee discloses the limitations of claim 5 with respect to grinding using a grindstone and not polishing using a polishing pad; thus, Lee therefore does not explicitly disclose the entirety of claim 5. However, the Lee/Kim combination makes obvious this claim.
Kim discloses a wafer processing apparatus that includes grinding stations B, C having grindstones 38a/38b respectively, and a polishing station D having a polishing pad 66, where the grinding stations B, C have the same general configuration as the polishing station D (i.e., the grindstones 38a/38b and polishing pad 66 each rotate on a spindle (elements 36, 64) and are lowered downward to grind/polish an upper surface of a wafer (Kim Figs. 2-3; ¶¶ 0027-0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kim with Lee by modifying the method of Lee to also use polishing pad to polish the wafer (e.g., maintain grinding with grinding wheel 34 down to thickness B2, then polish using a polishing pad starting at thickness B2 down to thickness B3), where in the process of polishing the wafer, the polishing pad exerts a downward force on the chamfered portion, thereby separating (due to the preformed cracks 13f) the chamfered portion from the first wafer 13. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because, assuming that thickness B3 is the final desired thickness for the wafer, polishing away wafer material (the material between thickness B2 and B3) that was subjected to grinding would remove any residual strain caused by the grinding process, thereby preventing crack in the wafer (see US 20130023107 A1 (“Martin”) ¶ 0037, “After the thinning step, the reverse side 11b of the device wafer 11 may be polished to remove any strains which may have been developed by the grinding of the reverse side 11b in the thinning step.”).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 4 and 6-7 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to wafer grinding apparatus and methods similar to Applicant’s invention, including references pertaining to the removal of an outer circumferential section of a circular wafer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/ Date: October 8, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3723
