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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the z-axis (see at least claim 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5: at line 21, “move along a z axis, the x axis” should be amended to read “move along a z axis; the x axis”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“lifting mechanism” as recited in at least claim 5 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “lifting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “lifting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
“moving mechanism” as recited in at least claim 5 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “moving”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “moving” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 claim 5, it is unclear what is intended by the limitations related to the x, y, and z axes. The x, y, and z axes are not defined in the claim, and due to the nature of the device being three-dimensional, the axes can be positioned along any direction. Examiner recommends further defining the movement of structures relative to one another rather than using coordinate axes.
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.
Claims 5, 7, 10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (US 20140083407) in view of Katamachi (US 6135103).
Regarding claim 5, Schmid discloses a crystal bar slicing system (wafer sawing system 200; see paragraph [0033] and fig. 2), comprising a crystal bar slicer (wafer sawing system 200 includes a plurality of wafer sawing chambers 300; see paragraph [0033] and figs. 2, 3A), a mechanical hand (linear robot 220; see fig. 2), a stockpiling region (input module 202 supplies uncut ingots and output module 210 receives sawed ingots; see paragraph [0029] and fig. 2), a sliding rail (rail 221; see fig. 2), wherein the crystal bar slicer comprises a frame body and a cutting shaft (frame 305 houses a cutting shaft between wire guide cylinders 321, 322; see fig. 3A), wherein the frame body is provided with a slicing chamber (sawing region 318; see fig. 3A) and a feeding channel (the feeding channel is the open portion of frame 305 that connects the feeding port to the exterior of the wafer sawing chamber 300; see annotated portion of fig. 7A below), the slicing chamber is in front of the feeding channel (sawing region 318 is in front of the feeding channel; see annotated portion of fig. 7A below), a feeding port is located on a rear sidewall of the slicing chamber (the feeding port is the opening into sawing region 318; see figs. 3A-3B, 5, and annotated portion of fig. 7A below), a rear end of the feeding channel is in communication with outside of the frame body (the rear end of the feeding channel is exposed to the outside of frame 305; see annotated portion of fig. 7A below), a front end of the feeding channel is in communication with the slicing chamber via the feeding port (the front end of the feeding channel connects to sawing region 318 via the feeding port; see annotated portion of fig. 7A below), a crystal holder is capable of entering the slicing chamber through the feeding channel (mounting plate 376 holds ingot 317 and enters sawing region 318 via the feeding channel; see paragraph [0029] and figs. 3A, 5, and annotated portion of fig. 7A below), the cutting shaft is disposed in the slicing chamber (the space between wire guide cylinders 321, 322 is located in sawing region 318; see fig. 3A), the mechanical hand is slidably disposed on the sliding rail and configured to move between the stockpiling region and the crystal bar slicer (robot 220 slides along rail 221 to move between input module 202, wafer sawing chambers 300, and output module 210; see paragraph [0034]).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schmid does not explicitly disclose a lifting mechanism and a moving mechanism, the slicing chamber comprises a discharging port, and the discharging port is disposed on a front sidewall of the slicing chamber and in communication with the outside of the frame body; the mechanical hand is disposed on a ceiling and configured as a sky-rail robot; the moving mechanism is provided between the lifting mechanism and the mechanical hand; the moving mechanism is configured to drive the sky-rail robot to move along an x axis, the sliding rail extends along a y axis, the lifting mechanism is configured to drive the sky-rail robot to move along a z axis, the x axis, the y axis and the z axis are perpendicular to each other; and the lifting mechanism is configured as a linear actuator, and the moving mechanism is configured as a linear actuator.
Katamachi discloses a lifting mechanism (base plate 64 is connected to Z-axis guide 66 in order to move vertically along the Z-axis; see col. 3, lines 58-66) and a moving mechanism (slider 56 is positioned to move along rail 52; see col. 3, lines 35-39), the slicing chamber comprises a discharging port (opening 36 is formed so that ingot 30 may be unloaded from processing chamber 17; see col. 3, lines 12-17 and fig. 1), the mechanical hand is disposed on a ceiling and configured as a sky-rail robot (rail 52 is formed along a ceiling of a structure such as a plant; see col. 3, lines 29-31 and fig. 3); the moving mechanism is configured to drive the sky-rail robot to move along an x axis (slider 56 is positioned to move along rail 52 in the Y direction, which corresponds to the x axis; see col. 3, lines 35-39 and fig. 3), the sliding rail extends along a y axis (rail 52 extends at least partially along an X direction, which corresponds to the y axis; see fig. 3), the lifting mechanism is configured to drive the sky-rail robot to move along a z axis (base plate 64 is connected to Z-axis guide 66 in order to move vertically along the Z-axis; see col. 3, lines 58-66), the x axis, the y axis and the z axis are perpendicular to each other (the X, Y, and Z directions are all perpendicular to one another; see fig. 3); and the lifting mechanism is configured as a linear actuator (base plate 64 is formed as part of a feed mechanism that moves in the Z direction via an output shaft connected to screw rod 72; see col. 3, lines 58-66 and fig. 3), and the moving mechanism is configured as a linear actuator (slider 56 is actuated by motor 58 to move along rail 52 in the Y direction; see col. 3, lines 35-39 and fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schmid in view of Katamachi to include a lifting mechanism and a moving mechanism. Katamachi discloses a system that permits loading and unloading of ingots into a slicer (see fig. 3). The lifting mechanism (base plate 64) and moving mechanism (slider 56) allow for ingots to be moved into and out of various sliders. Therefore, in order to provide the components for automatic loading/unloading of ingots, such a modification would be obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Schmid in view of Katamachi to include a discharging port on a side wall and for the moving mechanism to be between the lifting mechanism and mechanical hand since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70), and that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). As modified by Katamachi, a discharging port is located on the front sidewall of the slicing chamber. This would provide more options for removal of a cut ingot, and thus allow for more versatility of the system as a whole. Examiner also notes that alternatively, the feeding channel of Schmid could be additionally configured as a discharging port. Regarding the position of the moving mechanism, as discussed above, it would not impede the overall operation of the device to rearrange the elements such that the moving mechanism is provided between the lifting mechanism and the mechanical hand. Doing so would result in the mechanical hand being moved in the z-axis before being moved along the y-axis, but ultimately will not change the loading/unloading function of the device. Therefore, such modifications would be obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Schmid in view of Katamachi to include a rail located on the ceiling. There are a finite number of places a sliding rail could be located without impacting the movement of the mechanical hands. Placing the sliding rail on a ceiling as opposed to the floor would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art. This would save space, as material could be stored beneath the rail or alternatively, more slicers could be placed.
Schmid as modified discloses the sky-rail robot is configured to pick up a crystal holder from the stockpiling region, place the crystal holder into the slicing chamber via the feeding port, and take the crystal holder out from the slicing chamber via the discharging port (as modified, robot 220 is capable of picking up mounting plate 376 from input module 202, placing it in sawing region 318, then removing mounting plate 376 from the discharging port).
Regarding claim 7, Schmid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Schmid as modified further discloses wherein the mechanical hand is capable of moving in a preset moving region (robot 220 is supported by rail 221 such that it can only move within a preset region dependent on the length of rail 221; see paragraph [0033] and fig. 2), the discharging port is located in the preset moving region, and the feeding port and/or a rear end of the feeding channel are located in the preset moving region (as modified, each of the discharging port, feeding port, and rear of the feeding channel must be located within the preset moving region in order to facilitate transfer of uncut and cut ingots to and from wafer sawing chambers 300).
Regarding claim 10, Schmid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Schmid as modified further discloses a plurality of the crystal bar slicers (wire sawing chambers 300; see fig. 2), wherein all of the plurality of crystal bar slicers are disposed at one side of the sliding rail or beside both sides of the sliding rail (wire sawing chambers 300 are located on both sides of rail 221; see fig. 2), the plurality of crystal bar slicers disposed at the same side of the sliding rail are disposed side-by-side (each of wire sawing chambers 300 are side-by-side; see fig. 2), and a feeding channel of each of the plurality of crystal bar slicers is perpendicular to the sliding rail (in order to facilitate transfer of ingots by robots 220, it is interpreted that the feeding channels of each wire sawing chamber 300 are located perpendicular to rail 221 based on the orientations of the wire sawing chambers 300 in figs. 2 and 7A-7B).
Regarding claim 12, Schmid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Schmid as modified further discloses wherein the mechanical hand comprises two holding arms opposite to each other (robots 220 each comprise end-effectors 121, 122 opposite to one another; see fig. 1B), the two holding arms cooperate with each other to clip or release the crystal holder (end-effectors 121, 122 receive mounting plate 376 to transfer it to wire sawing chambers 300; see paragraphs [0029, 0034] and fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 19, Schmid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Schmid as modified further discloses wherein the rear end of the feeding channel is open, and configured to provide a space for allowing a mechanical hand to move (the feeding channel is open to the exterior of wire sawing chamber 300 so that robots 220 can transfer ingots to and from sawing region 318; see paragraph [0034] and annotated portion of fig. 7A above).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (US 20140083407) in view of Katamachi (US 6135103), and further in view of Albrecht (US 20130121802).
Regarding claim 13, Schmid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Schmid as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the stockpiling region is movable or fixed relative to the crystal bar slicer.
Albrecht discloses wherein the stockpiling region is movable or fixed relative to the crystal bar slicer (wafers may be stored on cart 100, which is configured to be moved by a user; see paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Schmid in view of Albrecht to make the stockpiling region movable or fixed. Albrecht discloses that carts can be used to transfer wafers to different locations and further, that wheels are included to help a user easily move the cart (see paragraphs [0018-0019]). The wheeled cart as taught by Albrecht can be included as a simple substitution of elements for input module 202 and output module 210 of Schmid. In this case, empty carts can be swapped with full ones in order to keep the supply of ingots to the system continuous. Therefore, such a modification would be obvious in order to allow operators to easily transfer ingots to and from the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that the discharging port cannot be located on the front sidewall of Schmid, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the position of the front sidewall is not defined relative to other structural elements. Thus, it is interpreted that the front sidewall may refer to any wall in the slicing chamber apart from the rear sidewall. As such, the discharging port can be located on a different wall without interfering with the position of the supply and receiving bobbins. Further, wire sawing chamber 300 comprises openings on the side that can be configured as a discharging port (see figs. 7A and 7B). Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that a discharging port can be located on a front sidewall of the wire sawing chamber without impeding operation of the device.
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 HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights