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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 13-14 be found allowable, claims 15-16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1, 4-11, and 13-16 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, these claims each recite “a commutation system.” It is unclear what “commutation” means in the context of wire cutting. Applicant’s specification and claims indicate that commutation system adjusts tension on the cutting line. However, this is not a known definition of commutation. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “commutation” in the claims appears to be used by the claims to mean “tension adjusting.” In the context of motors (which is not the context of the claims or disclosure), commutation is a means control current being supplied to a motor. This is not how the term is being used in the context of this application, and there does not appear to be any other definition of the term “commutation” that would be applicable in the context of wire cutting. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of this examination, the “commutation system” will be interpreted to cover only the structure and functions explicitly recited in the claims.
Further regarding claim 11, the claim recites “a line speed of the cutting line” in lines 6-7, and later recites “a line speed…of the central portion of the cutting line” in line 9. It is unclear if the claim is intentionally referring to two separate line speeds, or if these are intended to be the same thing. It is unclear in subsequent recitations which refer to “the line speed” which of these speeds is being referred to. For the purposes of this examination, these will be read as referring to the same line speed, which occurs at a central portion of the cutting line, as this is examiner’s best understanding of the claims.
Further regarding claim 11, the claim recites “a tension…of the cutting line” in lines 5-6, and later recites “a tension of the central portion of the cutting line” in line 9. This is unclear for substantially the same reasons as described above regarding the line speed. Furthermore, “the central portion” lacks antecedent basis in this recitation. The claim subsequently recites “a tension of a central portion of the cutting line” in line 17. The term “a tension” already has antecedent basis, and “a central portion” appears to be the same as “the central portion” recited in line 9. The claim terms should be amended to clarify antecedent basis and use consistent terminology throughout. For the purposes of this examination, these recitations of tension will be read as referring to the same tension at a central portion of the cutting line as this is examiner’s best understanding of the claims.
Claims 4-10 and 13-16 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claims 1 and 11.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isogai (JP 2001-328057, see attached machine translation) in view of Miyoshi (US 5944007).
Regarding claim 1, Isogai teaches a single crystal cutting device (shown in fig 1), comprising: a cutting system (elements 2, 3, 4, 12, and 13), a commutation system (elements 9L, 9R), and a detection system (elements 8L and 8R), wherein the cutting system includes a cutting line (elements 2, 4), a pay-off axis (central to wheel 3L), a guide wheel (3D), and a take-up axis (central to wheel 3R), the commutation system is disposed between the pay-off axis and the take-up axis (elements 9L2 and 9R2 are between pay-off and take-up axis) to adjust a tension ([0024]) and a line speed of the cutting line (as described [0076], tension affects speed of cutting line), and the detection system is configured to detect the tension of the cutting line ([0022]), wherein the commutation system includes a driving rotation axis (axis central to wheels 9L2 and 9R2) configured to adjust the line speed and the tension of the cutting line ([0024], [0076]; adjusting axis location adjusts tension, which in turn effects line speed) and a lifter (including elements 9LC, 9RC) configured to adjust a height of the driving rotation axis ([0024]).
Isogai does not explicitly teach the detection system configured to detect the line speed of the cutting line. However, Isogai is concerned with exercising control over the speed of the cutting line ([0058]), which would seem to require some determination of the speed. Additionally, Miyoshi teaches a detection system configured to detect a line speed of the cutting line (col 13, lines 45-57; rotational speed of motors is detected, which is indicative of the line speed as described col 14, lines 59-62). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the detection system of Isogai with the ability to detect the speed of the cutting line, as this allows a more precise feedback control necessary to maintain constant line speed as taught by Miyoshi (col 13, lines 40-57).
Regarding claim 4, Isogai, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Isogai further teaches the driving rotation axis is disposed at a central position between the pay-off axis and the take-up axis (as shown in fig 1)
Regarding claim 5, Isogai, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Isogai further teaches the detection system includes a sensor (elements 8L and 8R) disposed on the commutation system (as shown in fig 1) to detect the tension of the cutting line ([0022]). Isogai does not explicitly teach the sensor also detects line speed. However, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Miyoshi teaches a detection system including a sensor configured to detect a line speed of the cutting line (col 13, lines 45-57; rotational speed of motors is detected, which is indicative of the line speed as described col 14, lines 59-62; note that it is consistent with applicant’s specification [0034] that the claimed “sensor” comprises separate sensors for performing these separate detections). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sensor of Isogai with the ability to detect the speed of the cutting line, as this allows a more precise feedback control necessary to maintain constant line speed as taught by Miyoshi (col 13, lines 40-57).
Regarding claims 6-7, Isogai, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Isogai further teaches the lifter moves the driving rotation axis in a vertical direction to adjust the tension and the line speed ([0024]; moved in up and down direction to adjust tension, which necessarily affects speed).
Regarding claim 8, Isogai, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as described above. Isogai further teaches the lifter (9LC, 9RC) is configured to move the driving rotation axis in a vertical direction ([0024]; “moved up and down”) to change a tension of a central portion (4) of the cutting line (as described [0024]) until the tension of the central portion coincides with a tension of end points of the pay-off axis and the take-up axis when the tension of the central portion of the cutting line does not coincide with the tension of the end points of the pay-off axis and the take-up axis (the device is capable of the claimed function of matching tension by the lifting structure which moves the driving rotation axis up or down to change tension).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Isogai, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Isogai further teaches the lifter is configured to move the driving rotation axis upwardly in the vertical direction to increase the tension of the central cutting portion, and downwardly in the vertical direction to decrease the tension of the central portion ([0024]; as shown in fig 1, upward movement would increase tension and downward movement would decrease tension due to the location of the driving rotation axis below the central cutting portion), until the tension of the central portion coincides with the tension of the end points of the pay-off axis and the take-up axis when the tension of the central portion is less than or greater than the tension of the end points (the device is capable of the claimed function of matching tension by the lifting structure which moves the driving rotation axis up or down to change tension).
Regarding claim 11, Isogai teaches a method of using a single crystal cutting device, the crystal cutting device (shown in fig 1), comprising: a cutting system (elements 2, 3, 4, 12, and 13), a commutation system (elements 9L, 9R), and a detection system (elements 8L and 8R), wherein the cutting system includes a cutting line (elements 2, 4), a pay-off axis (central to wheel 3L), a guide wheel (3D), and a take-up axis (central to wheel 3R), the commutation system is disposed between the pay-off axis and the take-up axis (elements 9L2 and 9R2 are between pay-off and take-up axis) to adjust a tension ([0024]) and a line speed of the cutting line (as described [0076], tension affects speed of cutting line), and the detection system is configured to detect the tension of the cutting line ([0022]), wherein the commutation system comprises both a driving rotation axis (axis central to wheels 9L2 and 9R2) disposed at a middle position between the payoff axis and the take-up axis (fig 1; between element 3L and 3R) to adjust a line speed and a tension of the central portion of the cutting line ([0024], [0076]; adjusting axis location adjusts tension, which in turn effects line speed) and a lifter (including elements 9LC, 9RC) disposed on the driving rotation axis configured to adjust a height of the driving rotation axis ([0024]), wherein the method comprises disposing a single crystal (7; [0002]) in the single crystal cutting device to cut the single crystal ([0021]) by driving the cutting line through the guide wheel ([0020]), adjusting a rotation speed of the commutation system to control the line speed of the cutting line to cooperate with rotation speeds of the pay-off axis and the take-up axis (speed of rollers 9L2 and 9R2 will match line speed, as they rotate in conjunction with movement of the cutting line); and detecting a tension of a central portion (4) of the cutting line with the detection system ([0022]), when the detected tension of the central portion coincides with a target tension, continuing performing cutting ([0034]), or (note that the use of the term “or” here indicates only one of these alternatives are necessary to meet the claim) when the detected tension of the central portion of the cutting line does not coincide with a target tension, moving the commutation system in a vertical direction (as shown by vertical arrows in fig 1) to change the tension of the central portion until the tension of the central portion coincides with a target tension ([0024]) and then continuing cutting ([0034]).
Isogai does not explicitly teach the detection system used in the method configured to detect the line speed of the cutting line. However, Isogai is concerned with exercising control over the speed of the cutting line ([0058]), which would seem to require some determination of the speed. Additionally, Miyoshi teaches a detection system configured to detect a line speed of the cutting line (col 13, lines 45-57; rotational speed of motors is detected, which is indicative of the line speed as described col 14, lines 59-62). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the detection system in the method of Isogai with the ability to detect the speed of the cutting line, as this allows a more precise feedback control necessary to maintain constant line speed as taught by Miyoshi (col 13, lines 40-57).
Isogai does not explicitly teach the target tension being coinciding with the tension of the end points of the pay-off and take-up axis. However, Isogai does teach the tension adjustment being effective for “balancing” the tension with the wire being wound ([0034]), which appears to indicate a desire to match the claimed tensions. Additionally, Miyoshi teaches a tension adjusting system which makes the tension of the cutting wire at end points of a pay-off axis (11) and take-up axis (12) constant at all times (col 11, lines 7-35), and further describes that the desired tension at these points is equal (col 18, lines 9-14; in this embodiment the pay-off and take-up axes are elements 111 and 112). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the target tension of the central portion of the wire in the method of Isogai equal to the tension at the end points of the pay-off and take-up axes, as stabilizing the tension allows high speed operation and prolonged life of the wire rolls as taught by Miyoshi (col 6, lines 25-29), and which coincides with the stated desire of Isogai for balanced tension ([0034]).
Regarding claim 13, Isogai, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Isogai further teaches the detection system includes a sensor (elements 8L and 8R) disposed on the commutation system (as shown in fig 1) to detect the tension of the cutting line ([0022]), and detecting of the tension of the central portion of the cutting line comprises detecting the tension of the central portion of the cutting line with the sensor to determine whether the detected tension of the central portion coincides with the tension of the end points ([0022]; tension comparison discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above). Isogai does not explicitly teach the sensor also detects line speed. However, as detailed in the rejection of claim 11 above, Miyoshi teaches a detection system including a sensor configured to detect a line speed of the cutting line (col 13, lines 45-57; rotational speed of motors is detected, which is indicative of the line speed as described col 14, lines 59-62; note that it is consistent with applicant’s specification [0034] that the claimed “sensor” comprises separate sensors for performing these separate detections). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sensor of Isogai with the ability to detect the speed of the cutting line, as this allows a more precise feedback control necessary to maintain constant line speed as taught by Miyoshi (col 13, lines 40-57).
Regarding claim 14, Isogai, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Isogai further teaches when the tension of the central portion is less than the tension of the end points (based on the modification based on Miyoshi described in the rejection of claim 1, the tension of the end points is the target value described by Isogai), the lifter moves the driving rotation axis upwardly to increase the tension of the central portion; or when the tension of the central portion is greater than the tension of the end points, the lifter moves the driving rotation axis downwardly to decrease the tension of the central portion (described in [0024] and [0034]; if tension is below target value, the lifter drives the rotation axis upward).
Regarding claim 15, Isogai, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Isogai further teaches the detection system includes a sensor (elements 8L and 8R) disposed on the commutation system (as shown in fig 1) to detect the tension of the cutting line ([0022]), and detecting of the tension of the central portion of the cutting line comprises detecting the tension of the central portion of the cutting line with the sensor to determine whether the detected tension of the central portion coincides with the tension of the end points ([0022]; tension comparison discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above). Isogai does not explicitly teach the sensor also detects line speed. However, as detailed in the rejection of claim 11 above, Miyoshi teaches a detection system including a sensor configured to detect a line speed of the cutting line (col 13, lines 45-57; rotational speed of motors is detected, which is indicative of the line speed as described col 14, lines 59-62; note that it is consistent with applicant’s specification [0034] that the claimed “sensor” comprises separate sensors for performing these separate detections). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sensor of Isogai with the ability to detect the speed of the cutting line, as this allows a more precise feedback control necessary to maintain constant line speed as taught by Miyoshi (col 13, lines 40-57).
Regarding claim 16, Isogai, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as described above. Isogai further teaches when the tension of the central portion is less than the tension of the end points (based on the modification based on Miyoshi described in the rejection of claim 1, the tension of the end points is the target value described by Isogai), the lifter moves the driving rotation axis upwardly to increase the tension of the central portion; or when the tension of the central portion is greater than the tension of the end points, the lifter moves the driving rotation axis downwardly to decrease the tension of the central portion (described in [0024] and [0034]; if tension is below target value, the lifter drives the rotation axis upward).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 Sep 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Isogai does not teach the commutation system performing the function of adjusting a line speed of the cutting line, arguing that Isogai only describes controlling a rotational speed of the rollers. However, as the rollers are what drives the cutting line to move, adjustment of the roller speed necessarily adjusts the speed of the cutting line. Furthermore, Isogai explicitly teaches adjusting tension on the driving rotation axis by using the lifter to adjust its height ([0024]). As described in ([0064] and [0076]), the tension of the wire during cutting directly effects the wire line speed. Therefore, the explicitly described tension adjustment necessarily adjusts a speed of the wire as claimed. In other words, Isogai’s tension adjustment provides the line speed adjustment, which is consistent with applicant’s claim 6 and paragraph [0030], which describe the line speed adjustment occurring by changing tension.
Applicant argues that Miyoshi does not teach detecting the line speed of the cutting line. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Miyoshi explicitly describes monitoring the speed of the motors which drive the cutting line (col 13, lines 45-57). As described by Miyoshi in col 14, lines 59-62, this speed directly relates to the cutting line speed. Furthermore, as Isogai is concerned with exercising control over the speed of the cutting line ([0058]), and discusses examining the running speed of the wire ([0062]) a person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to provide such a sensor to the device and method of Isogai. Applicant’s specification shows the sensor as a black box 8 provided on the driving rotation axis 7 and provides no description for how the line speed is detected. Therefore, there is nothing in applicant’s claims or from the context of applicant’s disclosure which would differentiate from an indirect line speed sensor such as that disclosed by Miyoshi.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome some of the previous 112b rejections, but there are still issues of clarity as detailed in the rejections above.
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 MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723