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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2 and 6 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3 and 7 are amended. Claim 1 is an independent claim. Claims 1, 3-5 and 7 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for” or a generic placeholder) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The word “means” may be substituted by a term that serves as a generic placeholder and still invoke 112(f) paragraph. The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for” or a generic placeholder) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for” or a generic placeholder) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 contains “a measurement sensor … measures a change in the level of the surface of the molten silicon” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural term “sensor” coupled with functional language “measures a change in the level of the surface of the molten silicon” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. After reviewing the specification, the “measurement unit” has no description of the corresponding structures.
Claim 1 contains “a control unit which controls supply of the molten silicon” and “the control unit stops supplying the molten silicon” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural term “unit” coupled with functional language “controls supply of the molten silicon” and “stops supplying the molten silicon” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. After reviewing the specification, the “unit” has no description of the corresponding structures.
Claim 3 contains “the control unit calculates a change in level of the surface of the molten silicon” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural term “unit” coupled with functional language “calculates a change in level of the surface of the molten silicon” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. After reviewing the specification, the “control unit” has no description of the corresponding structures.
Claim 4 contains “the control unit increases the molten silicon” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural term “unit” coupled with functional language “increases the molten silicon” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. After reviewing the specification, the “control unit” has no description of the corresponding structures.
Claim 5 contains “the control unit decreases the molten silicon” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural term “unit” coupled with functional language “decreases the molten silicon” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. After reviewing the specification, the “control unit” has no description of the corresponding structures.
Claim 7 contains “the control unit calculates a change in weight of the ingot per unit time” and “the control unit increases the molten silicon” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural term “unit” coupled with functional language “calculates a change in weight of the ingot per unit time” and “increases the molten silicon” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. After reviewing the specification, the “control unit” has no description of the corresponding structures.
Claim 7 contains “a weight measurement sensor which measures a change in weight of the ingot per unit time” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural term “unit” coupled with functional language “measures a change in weight of the ingot per unit time” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. After reviewing the specification, the “weight measurement” has no description of the corresponding structures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites "measurement sensor", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
Claim 7 recites "weight measurement sensor", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
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, 3-5 and 7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “measurement sensor… measures a change in level of the surface of the molten silicon,” “a control unit which controls supply of the molten silicon” and “the control unit stops supplying the molten silicon”, but there is no corresponding structure in the specification could be identified as the “measurement sensor” and “control unit”. Claim elements “a measurement sensor measures a/the change in level of a/the surface of the molten silicon,” “a control unit which controls supply of the molten silicon” and “the control unit stops supplying the molten silicon” that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Claim 3 recites “the control unit calculates a calculated change in level of the surface of the molten silicon”, but there is no corresponding structure in the specification could be identified as the “control unit.” Claim elements “the control unit calculates a change in level of the surface of the molten silicon” that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Claim 4 recites “the control unit increases the molten silicon”, but there is no corresponding structure in the specification could be identified as the “control unit.” Claim elements “the control unit increases the molten silicon” that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Claim 5 recites “the control unit decreases the molten silicon”, but there is no corresponding structure in the specification could be identified as the “control unit.” Claim elements “the control unit decreases the molten silicon” that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Claim 7 recites “a weight measurement sensor which measures a change in weight of the ingot per unit time”, but there is no corresponding structure in the specification could be identified as the “weight measurement unit.” Claim elements “a weight measurement unit which measures a change in weight of the ingot per unit time” that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Claim 7 recites “the control unit calculates a change in weight of the ingot per unit time”, but there is no corresponding structure in the specification could be identified as the “control unit.” Claim elements “the control unit calculates a change in weight of the ingot per unit time” that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zebin Zeng (CN 102418140 A, machine translation, “Zeng”), and further in view of Sung et al (KR 20110088164 A, machine translation, “Sung”).
Regarding claim 1, Zeng teaches an ingot growing apparatus comprising a growth furnace in which a crucible 7/8 (main crucible) is disposed (figs 1-5, 0015-0022, 0041), wherein the main crucible accommodates molten silicon 18 to grow an ingot 17 (figs 1-5, abstract, 0019-0023, 0041, 0047); a melting tube 35/44/45 (preliminary crucible) which receives a polycrystalline silicon 42 (solid silicon material) (figs 2-5, abstract, 0015-0019, 0043-0045, 0049, 0052, 0053, 0055-0059, 0061), melts the solid silicon material (figs 2-5, abstract, 0015-0019, 0043-0045, 0049, 0052, 0053, 0055-0059, 0061), and supplies molten silicon to the main crucible 7/8 (figs 2-5, 0018, 0019, 0041, 0045, 0047, 0053, 0056, 0059-0063); a position sensor 23 (measurement sensor) which is installed to pass through a top side wall of the growth furnace and measures a change in level of a surface of the molten silicon in the main crucible (figs 2-5, 0015-0019, 0041, 0043, 0049, 0052, 0055, 0058, 0061, claims 1-5); and a control system 15 (control unit) which is connected to the position sensor 23 (measurement sensor) for controlling the measured changes (apparently having a value) in the liquid level surface of the silicon melt, and controls replenishment (supply) of the molten silicon in the preliminary crucible to the main crucible on the basis of the measured change in the level of the surface of the molten silicon (figs 2-5, 0011, 0015-0018, 0041, 0043, 0049, 0052, 0055, 0058 and 0061).
Zeng teaches the control unit/system being connected to the measurement sensor as addressed above, and further teaches the control system being a computer control system (0009, 0011), inexplicitly teaching the control unit/system being electrically connected to the measurement sensor. Furthermore, Sung teaches an apparatus, wherein a control unit automatically/electrically controls a melt gap control system with a measurement sensor (abstract, 0010, 0035-0043, 0049-0056, claims 1-4 and 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Zeng per teachings of Sung in order to improve an accuracy of control the melt gap between shield bottom and melt surface (Sung abstract and 0010).
Zeng/Sung further teaches a cover 20 for heat-insulating (a reflector which blocks heat) from being transferred to the ingot is provided at an upper side of the main crucible 7/8 (Zeng figs 1-5, 0015-0018, 0041, 0043, 0052, 0055, 0058 and claims 1-4); and the measurement/position sensor measures the change in the level of the surface of the molten silicon (Zeng figs 2-5, 0019, 0049, 0061 and claim 5), and a gap/distance positioned between the surface of the molten silicon in the main crucible and a lower end of the reflector/shield being controlled/measured (Zeng figs 1-5; Sung abstract, 0010, 0035-0043, 0049-0056, claims 1-4 and 6). As just addressed, Zeng/Sung teaches the control unit being electrically connected to the measurement sensor, the level of the surface of the molten silicon, the gap/distance between the surface of the molten silicon in the main crucible, the lower end of the reflector/cylinder and the control unit controls supplying the molten silicon in the preliminary crucible to the main crucible, similar to the instantly claimed structural features. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Zeng/Sung is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “receiving a value of the measured changed in the level of the surface of the molten silicon, and measuring the change in the level of the surface of the molten silicon through a change in gap between the surface of the molten silicon in the main crucible and a lower end of the reflector by measuring the surface of the molten silicon of the main crucible and the lower end of the reflector” and “when the surface of the molten silicon comes into contact with the lower end of the reflector, the control unit stops supplying the molten silicon in the preliminary crucible to the main crucible”. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 3, Zeng/Sung teaches the control unit/computer control system controls/monitors a change in level of the surface of the molten silicon in the main crucible, a diameter of the ingot, an upward pulling speed of the ingot, and a diameter of the main crucible (Zeng 0005, 0011, 0015-0018, 0041, 0043, 0049, 0052, 0055, 0058, 0061, 0062, claims 1-4), similar control unit as instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Zeng/Sung is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “calculating a calculated change in level of the surface of the molten silicon in the main crucible on the basis of a diameter of the ingot, an upward pulling speed of the ingot, and a diameter of the main crucible”. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 4, as addressed above, Zeng/Sung teaches the control unit/computer control system controls/monitors a change in level of the surface of the molten silicon in the main crucible, a diameter of the ingot, an upward pulling speed of the ingot, and a diameter of the main crucible, similar control unit as instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Zeng/Sung is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “when the measured change in the level of the surface of the molten silicon is greater than the calculated change in the level of the surface of the molten silicon, the control unit increases the molten silicon in the preliminary crucible supplied to the main crucible as much as a difference between the measured change in the level of the surface of the molten silicon and the calculated change in the level of the surface of the molten silicon”. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 5, as addressed above, Zeng/Sung teaches the control unit/computer control system controls/monitors a change in level of the surface of the molten silicon in the main crucible, a diameter of the ingot, an upward pulling speed of the ingot, and a diameter of the main crucible, similar control unit as instantly claimed. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Zeng/Sung is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “when the measured change in the level of the surface of the molten silicon is smaller than the calculated change in the level of the surface of the molten silicon, the control unit decreases the molten silicon in the preliminary crucible supplied to the main crucible as much as a difference between the measured change in the level of the surface of the molten silicon and the calculated change in the level of the surface of the molten silicon”. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng/Sung as applied to claim 1 above, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng/Sung in view of In-Sik Bang (US 20170356100 A1, “Bang”).
Regarding claim 7, Zeng/Sung teaches the control unit as addressed above, and further teaches a weighing device (figs 2-5, abstract, 0015-0019, 0041, 0043, 0044, 0052, 0055, 0058, 0061, claims 1-5), similar structural elements of the control unit and weight measurement sensor as instantly claimed. It has also been held that the mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Zeng/Sung is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “measuring a change in weight of the ingot per unit time, calculating a change in weight of the ingot per unit time on the basis of the diameter of the ingot and the upward pulling speed of the ingot, and when the measured change in the weight of the ingot per unit time is greater than the calculated change in the weight of the ingot per unit time, the control unit increases the molten silicon in the preliminary crucible supplied to the main crucible as much as a difference between the measured change in the weight of the ingot per unit time and the calculated change in the weight of the ingot per unit time”. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, it is a known practice that a load cell (sensor) is used to weight the weight of an ingot for a unit time as taught by Bang (abstract, 0012, 0025, 0026, 0031, 0039, 0043, 0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Zeng/Sung per teachings of Bang in order to suitable arrangement of weighting device for measuring the weight of the ingot and produce the ingot with desired quality (Bang 0012, 0028).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the “Claim Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. 112(0 and Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)” based on Wikipedia at "control unit"¹ and see on-line Encyclopedia Britannica at "control unit."² that the "control unit" is not a generic placeholder under Prong (A), and is well-known in the art to refer to structure” have been considered, but not found persuasive. Applicant’s evidence about “control unit” in the Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica is fully considered. However, none of the Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica describes “a control unit which controls supply of the molten silicon,” “the control unit stops supplying the molten silicon,” “the control unit calculates a change in level of the surface of the molten silicon,” “the control unit increases the molten silicon,” “the control unit decreases the molten silicon,” “the control unit calculates a change in weight of the ingot per unit time.” In fact, none of the Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica mentions the control unit for a molten/melt/liquid surface; apparently, the words “control unit” in the claimed “a control unit which controls supply of the molten silicon,” “the control unit stops supplying the molten silicon,” “the control unit calculates a change in level of the surface of the molten silicon,” “the control unit increases the molten silicon,” “the control unit decreases the molten silicon,” “the control unit calculates a change in weight of the ingot per unit time” are not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure, and the instantly claimed “control unit” is a generic placeholder. Hence, the argument concerning the instantly claimed "control unit well-known in the art" represents the counselor’s opinion, which is not supported by the evidence that the applicant provided. Furthermore, even if the applicant’s argument that “control unit” of the Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica is the instant claimed control unit, and is well-known in the art to refer to structure as applicant asserted, the instantly claimed “control unit” would still not be patentable since it is already known in the prior art as the applicant already/explicitly admitted that the Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica teaches the instantly claimed control unit.
Applicant's arguments with respect to “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “specific programming or structure”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is examiner’s position that a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings/combination of the instantly cited references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714