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 .
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 1-3, 6-8, 12, 14, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0350641 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses an adhesive tape application system (FIG. 1, Abstract of Nakamura, protective tape attaching apparatus #10), comprising: an adhesive tape dispenser configured to dispense adhesive tape (FIG. 1 of Nakamura, sheet feeding means #40; [0020] of Nakamura, sheet #60 composed of release paper and a plurality of protective tapes #62; [0023] of Nakamura, each protective tape #62 composed of a base sheet and an adhesive layer); a laminating unit configured to laminate the adhesive tape on a workpiece (FIG. 1, [0025] of Nakamura, pressure roller #52 which functions to press each protective tape #62 against the upper surface of a wafer W); and a photo-treatment device disposed between the adhesive tape dispenser and the laminating unit and configured to perform photo-treatment of the adhesive tape to tune an adhesive strength of the adhesive tape (FIG. 1, [0026] of Nakamura, apparatus #10 further includes UV applying means #56 for applying UV light to each protective tape between sheet feeding means #40 and pressure roller #52; [0023] of Nakamura, adhesion of adhesive layer of protective tape #62 reduced by applying UV light).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura discloses that the photo-treatment device is configured to perform photo-treatment of the adhesive tape after the adhesive tape is dispensed from the adhesive tape dispenser and before the adhesive tape is laminated on the workpiece (FIG. 1 of Nakamura, UV applying means #56 applies UV light to each protective tape after tape is dispensed and before lamination).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura discloses that the photo-treatment device comprises a light source and the photo-treatment device is configured to perform the photo-treatment by treating a portion of the adhesive tape by illuminating the adhesive tape with light from the light source (FIG. 1 of Nakamura, UV applying means #56 necessarily has a UV light source).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura discloses that a distance between the light source and the portion of the adhesive tape being treated by the light from the light source is in a range from 0.1 cm to 30 cm ([0032] of Nakamura, UV light applied at a distance of 1 cm or 5 mm).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura does not specifically disclose that a distance between a photo-treatment location where the light source illuminates the portion of the adhesive tape and a lamination location where the laminating unit laminates the treated portion of the adhesive tape on the workpiece is less than 2 meters. Nakamura, however, discloses positioning the UV applying means #56 within two wafer diameters of the pressure roller #52 (FIG. 3 of Nakamura). Since semiconductor wafers are typically 450 mm or less, the distance between UV applying means #56 and pressure roller #52 as depicted in FIG. 3 would be less than 900 mm.
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura discloses that the photo-treatment device is configured to treat the portion of the adhesive tape by illuminating the portion of the adhesive tape with the light from the light source for an exposure time in a range from 0.1 second to 1000 seconds ([0032] of Nakamura, light applied for time of 0.5 to 1 s).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura discloses that the light from the light source comprises a wavelength in an ultraviolet (UV) wavelength range ([0026] of Nakamura, UV light applied to protective tape) and the adhesive tape comprises an acrylic-based UV adhesive ([0023] of Nakamura, adhesive layer of protective tape formed of acrylic adhesive).
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura discloses that the adhesive tape comprises one of back grinding tape, dicing tape, or protection tape (Abstract of Nakamura, tape is a protective tape; claim only requires one of the recited types of tape).
Regarding claim 15, Nakamura discloses a method of applying adhesive tape to a workpiece (Abstract of Nakamura, protective tape attaching method for attaching protective tape to wafer), the method comprising: dispensing the adhesive tape ([0029] of Nakamura, leading portion of sheet #60 drawn out from protective tape roll R); modifying an adhesive strength of the portion of the adhesive tape ([0032] of Nakamura, UV light applied to protective tape #62 to reduce adhesion of tape); and laminating the treated portion of the adhesive tape on the workpiece ([0036] of Nakamura, UV treated tape superimposed and laminated to wafer).
Regarding claim 20, Nakamura discloses an adhesive tape application system (FIG. 1, Abstract of Nakamura, protective tape attaching apparatus #10), comprising: an adhesive tape dispenser configured to dispense adhesive tape (FIG. 1 of Nakamura, sheet feeding means #40; [0020] of Nakamura, sheet #60 composed of release paper and a plurality of protective tapes #62; [0023] of Nakamura, each protective tape #62 composed of a base sheet and an adhesive layer); a laminating unit configured to laminate the adhesive tape on a workpiece (FIG. 1, [0025] of Nakamura, pressure roller #52 which functions to press each protective tape #62 against the upper surface of a wafer W); a tension control unit between the adhesive tape dispenser and the laminating unit and configured to maintain tension of the adhesive tape ([0025] of Nakamura, apparatus comprises a tension roller #54 and a bending plate #50 to control tension of the tape; bending plate #50 is between the sheet feeding means #40 and the pressure roller #52); and a photo-treatment device configured to perform photo-treatment of the adhesive tape to tune an adhesive strength of the adhesive tape (FIG. 1, [0026] of Nakamura, apparatus #10 further includes UV applying means #56 for applying UV light to each protective tape; [0023] of Nakamura, adhesion of adhesive layer of protective tape #62 reduced by applying UV light), wherein a location of the photo-treatment device is one of between the adhesive tape dispenser and the tension control unit, or between the tension control unit and the laminating unit (FIG. 1 of Nakamura, UV applying means #56 located between sheet feeding means #40 and pressure roller #52).
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.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 5 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura.
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura does not specifically disclose that a wavelength of the light from the light source is in a range from 200 nm to 700 nm. Nakamura, however, discloses the use of ultraviolet light ([0026] of Nakamura) which inherently has a wavelength of 100 to 400 nm. Nakamura therefore clearly teaches a wavelength range (i.e., 100 to 400 nm) that overlaps with that recited in claim 5 (i.e., 200 to 700 nm) which would render the claimed wavelength range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura does not specifically disclose that modifying an adhesive strength of the portion of the adhesive tape comprises photo-treating the portion of the adhesive tape with light from a light source of a photo-treatment device, wherein a wavelength of the light from the light source is in a range from 200 nm to 700 nm. Nakamura, however, discloses the use of ultraviolet light to treat the adhesive tape ([0026] of Nakamura) which light inherently has a wavelength of 100 to 400. Nakamura therefore clearly teaches a wavelength range (i.e., 100 to 400 nm) that overlaps with that recited in claim 5 (i.e., 200 to 700 nm) which would render the claimed wavelength range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura discloses that the photo-treating the portion of the adhesive tape comprises photo-treating the portion of the adhesive tape such that a distance between the light source and the portion of the adhesive tape is in a range from 0.1 cm to 30 cm ([0032] of Nakamura, UV light applied at a distance of 1 cm or 5 mm).
Regarding claim 18, Nakamura discloses that the photo-treating the portion of the adhesive tape comprises photo-treating the portion of the adhesive tape such that an exposure time of exposing the portion of adhesive tape to the light from the light source is in a range from 0.1 second to 1000 seconds ([0032] of Nakamura, light applied for time of 0.5 to 1 s).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0095418 A1).
Regarding claim 9 , Nakamura does not specifically disclose the adhesive tape application system of claim 3, further comprising: a control unit configured to control a setting of the photo-treatment device, wherein the setting comprises at least one of a light wavelength of the light from the light source, a light-to-tape distance between the light source and the adhesive tape, a light intensity of the light from the light source and an exposure time of exposing the portion of the adhesive tape to the light from the light source. Yamamoto, however, discloses a UV irradiation apparatus for lowering the adhesive strength of a protective tape in a semiconductor manufacturing process (Abstract, [0014] of Yamamoto). According to Yamamoto, a controller controls the irradiation intensity and time during UV exposure ([0061] of Yamamoto) such that the separating stress during separation of the tape from the wafer becomes even and damage to the wafer can be avoided ([0019] of Yamamoto). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Nakamura with a control unit to control the UV irradiation intensity and time. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to even out the separating stress during separation of the tape from the wafer thereby avoiding damage to the wafer as taught by Yamamoto ([0019] of Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 19 , Nakamura does not specifically disclose that the photo-treating the portion of the adhesive tape comprises controlling a setting of the photo-treatment device, wherein the setting comprises at least one of a light wavelength of the light from the light source, a light-to-tape distance between the light source and the adhesive tape, a light intensity of the light from the light source and an exposure time of exposing the portion of the adhesive tape to the light from the light source. Yamamoto, however, discloses a UV irradiation method for lowering the adhesive strength of a protective tape in a semiconductor manufacturing process (Abstract, [0014] of Yamamoto). According to Yamamoto, a controller controls the irradiation intensity and time during UV exposure ([0061] of Yamamoto) such that the separating stress during separation of the tape from the wafer becomes even and damage to the wafer can be avoided ([0019] of Yamamoto). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the irradiation intensity and time in the method of Nakamura. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to even out the separating stress during separation of the tape from the wafer thereby avoiding damage to the wafer as taught by Yamamoto ([0019] of Yamamoto).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Yamamoto as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Priewasser et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0249294 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura does not specifically disclose the adhesive tape application system of claim 9, wherein the control unit is further configured to control a setting of the adhesive tape dispenser and a setting of the laminating unit. Priewasser, however, discloses a alignment device for aligning and laminating protective tape with a wafer (Abstract of Priewasser) wherein the device comprises a tape conveyance mechanism for conveying the protective tape to a peeling station ([0061] of Priewasser), a tape application section for applying (i.e., laminating) the protective tape to the wafer ([0097] of Priewasser) and a control device configured to control operations of the various devices ([0059] of Priewasser). Also according to Priewasser, the device allows wafers to be aligned with high accuracy and the protective tape to be applied with high accuracy ([0056] of Priewasser). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified system with a control unit configured to control a setting of the adhesive tape dispenser and a setting of the laminating unit. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow wafers to be aligned with high accuracy and the protective tape to be applied with high accuracy as taught by Priewasser ([0056] of Priewasser).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura adhesive tape application system of claim 9, further comprising: an alignment and positioning device configured to align the adhesive tape with a surface of the workpiece before application of the adhesive tape to the workpiece (FIG. 1, [0022] of Nakamura, guide rails #34 which operate in conjunction with holding table #20sheet feeding means #40 to position the protective tape on the wafer); a workpiece handling device configured to transport the workpiece and hold the workpiece during the performing of the lamination by the laminating unit (FIG. 4, [0035] of Nakamura, holding table #20 which is moved in the direction X1 during laminating).
Nakamura does not specifically disclose a cutting tool configured to cut the adhesive tape around a perimeter of the workpiece and the adhesive tape that has been laminated on the workpiece. Moreover, in Yamamoto the protective tape is precut to have a size corresponding to the size of the wafer ([0006] of Yamamoto). Yamamoto, however, discloses using tape that is not precut wherein the irradiation apparatus comprises a cutter mechanism to cut unnecessary portions of the adhesive tape (Abstract, FIG. 4, [0071] of Yamamoto). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Nakamura with a cutter mechanism in order to allow the system to be used with tape that was not precut as taught by Yamamoto (Abstract, FIG. 4, [0071] of Yamamoto).
Namakura also does not specifically disclose that the control unit is further configured to control a setting of at least one of the alignment and positioning device, the workpiece handling device and the cutting tool. Priewasser, however, discloses a alignment device for aligning and laminating protective tape with a wafer (Abstract of Priewasser) wherein the device comprises a tape conveyance mechanism for conveying the protective tape to a peeling station ([0061] of Priewasser), a tape application section for applying (i.e., laminating) the protective tape to the wafer ([0097] of Priewasser), a cutter unit for cutting the protective tape ([0141] of Priewasser) and a control device configured to control operations of the various devices ([0059] of Priewasser). Also according to Priewasser, the device allows wafers to be aligned with high accuracy and the protective tape to be applied with high accuracy ([0056] of Priewasser). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified system with a control unit configured to control a setting of at least one of the alignment and positioning device, the workpiece handling device and the cutting tool. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow wafers to be aligned with high accuracy and the protective tape to be applied with high accuracy as taught by Priewasser ([0056] of Priewasser).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Hou et al. (Taiwanese Patent Publication No. TW M487521 U, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura does not specifically disclose that the light source comprises one of a bar-type light source or plate-type light source. Hou, however, discloses a wafer debonding device comprising a UV light source in the form of an LED lighting module which is planar (i.e., plate shaped) (FIG. 1, pg. 2 of Hou, led lighting module #20). According to Hou, the led lighting module achieves good wafer debonding quality by providing uniform exposure of the wafer to UV light (pg. 2 of Hou). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a planar or plate shaped UV lighting module in the system of Nakamura. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve good wafer debonding quality by providing uniform exposure of the wafer to UV light as taught by Hou (pg. 2 of Hou).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Sakai et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0068694 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura does not specifically disclose that the workpiece comprises a semiconductor wafer including a lamination surface comprising at least one of silicon, silicon carbide (SiC), solder, an organic polymer layer, a polyimide (PI) layer, a glycol ether-type protection layer, a molding layer, an underfill layer, and a metal layer. Moreover, Nakamura discloses that the workpiece is a wafer (Abstract of Nakamura) but does not disclose the specific type of wafer. Sakai discloses a wafer processing method wherein a protective tape is applied to a semiconductor wafer such as a silicon wafer, a SiC wafer or a metal ([0026] of Nakamura). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Nakamura with a wafer as disclosed in Sakai since Sakai establishes that it was known to apply protective tapes to those types of wafers. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights