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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 remain pending in the application. Claim 9 is cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 10, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5: the claim recites “the plurality of sliding rails are disposed on a ceiling and a floor”, but based on the specification (see paragraphs [0014, 0077]), it appears as though it should read “the plurality of sliding rails are disposed on a ceiling or a floor” and has been treated as such for purposes of examination
Claim 10: at line 5, “siding rail” should read “sliding rail”
Claim 20: at lines 3-4, “the at least one discharging port” should read “one of the at least one discharging ports”
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:
“holding 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 “holding”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “holding” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
“material mover” as recited in at least claim 8 (first, “mover” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “material”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “material” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mover)
“first pushing mechanism” as recited in at least claim 11 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “pushing”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “pushing” 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 the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claim 8 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The term “material mover” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), however there is no corresponding structure provided in the specification, and the intended structure is unclear in view of the drawings. Thus, it is unknown how the function of moving material is achieved, or what is considered to be a “mover”; would any device capable of moving material be sufficient (for example, a conveyor belt, wheeled cart, AGV, etc.)? Further, no examples are provided to apprise one of the scope of this term. Therefore, the specification is not enabling as it pertains to the term “material mover”.
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 8 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.
Claim limitation “material mover” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As discussed above, the specification fails to disclose any corresponding structure of the material mover. Since the structure is not sufficiently depicted in the drawings, Examiner interprets the material mover to correspond to any structure that is capable of performing the recited conveying function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, 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 and clearly links them to the function 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 (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, 10-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (US 20140083407).
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 (wire sawing chamber 300; see figs. 2 and 3A), a mechanical hand (linear robot 220; see fig. 2) and a stockpiling region (input module 202 supplies un-cut ingots and output module 210 receives sawed ingots; see paragraph [0029] and fig. 2), and the plurality of mechanical hands are configured to pick up a crystal holder (mounting plate 376; see paragraph [0029]) and a crystal bar to be cut from the stockpiling region and convey the crystal holder and the crystal bar to be cut to a slicing chamber (end-effectors 121, 122 of robot 220 engage with mounting plate 376, which supports ingot 317, to transport un-cut ingots from input module 202 to one of the wire sawing chambers 300; see paragraphs [0029, 0033-0034]), wherein the crystal bar slicer comprises a frame body (frame 305; see fig. 3A), a cutting shaft (sawing region 318; see fig. 3A) and a holding mechanism (support table 312; see paragraph [0038]), wherein the frame body is provided with a slicing chamber (interior of frame 305; see fig. 3A) and a feeding channel (it appears as though wire sawing chamber 300 comprises a feeding channel on a side wall, which is presumed to have a similar, tunnel-like construction as ingot supporting element 611 as shown in figs. 6A-6B, which appears to function as a feeding channel; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the slicing chamber is in front of the feeding channel (the slicing chamber is located in front of the feeding channel; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), a rear sidewall of the slicing chamber is provided with a feeding port (the feeding port is the interior portion of frame 305 where the channel opens up into the slicing chamber; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), a rear end of the feeding channel is in communication with outside of the frame body (the exterior of the feeding channel is open to the outside of frame 305; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), a front end of the feeding channel is in communication with the slicing chamber via the feeding port (the opposite end of the feeding channel that is not exposed to the exterior of frame 305 abuts the feeding port, which opens up into the slicing chamber), a crystal holder is capable of entering the slicing chamber through the feeding channel (ingot 317 can enter the slicing chamber through the feeding channel; see fig. 4), the cutting shaft is disposed in the slicing chamber (sawing region 318 is located within frame 305; see fig. 3A), the holding mechanism is configured to drive the crystal holder to move towards or away from the cutting shaft (support table 312 is moved vertically in the Z-direction towards wires 323; see paragraph [0038]), and the crystal bar slicing system further includes a plurality of sliding rails (rail 221; see fig. 2), the plurality of sliding rails are disposed on a ceiling and a floor (rail 221 appears to be located on a floor of the system; see fig. 2), and the plurality of mechanical hands are slidably disposed on the plurality of sliding rails (robot 220 is capable of moving in direction M along rail 221; see paragraph [0034] and fig. 2), so that the mechanical hands are capable of moving between the stockpiling region and the crystal bar slicer (robot 220 is able to move between chambers as well as input module 202 and output module 210; see paragraph [0034] and fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schmid does not explicitly disclose a plurality of mechanical hands.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schmid to include a plurality of mechanical hands since it has been held 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). In the instant case, including additional mechanical hands (linear robot 220) would improve efficiency of the device. For example, if two or more wire sawing chambers finish a cutting operation at the same time, a plurality of mechanical hands could unload the cut ingot at the same time, rather than one hand performing each task sequentially. Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to improve efficiency of the system.
Schmid as modified does not explicitly disclose the slicing chamber comprises at least one discharging port, and one of the at least one discharging ports is provided on a roof of the slicing chamber.
An alternative embodiment of Schmid discloses the slicing chamber comprises at least one discharging port (ingot supporting element 611 appears to act as a feeding/discharge port for ingot 317; see figs. 6A-6B), and one of the at least one discharging ports is provided on a roof of the slicing chamber (ingot supporting element 611 is located on the roof of frame 601; see figs. 6A-6B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify a first embodiment of Schmid in view of the alternative embodiment of Schmid to include a discharging port on the roof of the frame. Schmid teaches multiple embodiments which may be combined together (see paragraph [0039]). It is interpreted that these embodiments are optionally combined, and thus not every embodiment must be combined in one device. Combining the embodiments shown in figs. 4 and 6A-6B, results in a device that comprises a feeding channel and feeding port located on a side wall (as shown in fig. 4), as well as a discharging port located on the roof of the frame (as shown in figs. 6A-6B, it is interpreted that ingot supporting element 611 is configured as an entrance/exit to the interior of the device). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an ingot could reasonably be inserted from the side and removed from the top in order to speed up the process of changeover between ingots. That is, less time will be spent transferring ingots if a fresh ingot can be inserted at the same time as a cut ingot is removed, which would most easily be achieved through multiple openings. Therefore, combining embodiments to include both entrances would be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 6, 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 further configured to pick up the crystal holder (end-effectors 121, 122 of robot 220 are configured to engage mounting plate 376 which supports ingot 317; see paragraphs [0029, 0033]) and a cut crystal bar from the discharging port and/or the feeding port (end-effectors 121, 122 of robot 220 engage mounting plate 376 after ingot 317 has been sawed; see paragraph [0029]), and convey the crystal holder and the cut crystal bar to the stockpiling region (end-effectors 121, 122 convey mounting plate 376 and cut ingot 317 to the output module 210; see paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 7, Schmid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 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 move within a preset region; 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 (both the feeding port and discharging port are located within the preset moving region, otherwise robot 220 would not be capable of transferring ingots between input module 202, wire sawing chambers 300, and output module 210; see paragraphs [0029, 033] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Schmid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Schmid as modified further discloses a plurality of the crystal bar slicers (a plurality of wire sawing chambers 300 are part of wafer sawing system 200; see fig. 2), 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 (all of 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 (wire sawing chambers 300 that are located on the same side of rail 221 are side-by-side relative to one another; see fig. 2).
Schmid as modified does not explicitly disclose a feeding channel of each of the plurality of crystal bar slicers is perpendicular to the siding rail.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Schmid to make the feeding channels perpendicular to the sliding rail 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). Schmid as modified does not explicitly disclose the position of the feeding channel relative to the sliding rail. However, in the modified device of Schmid, it does not appear that there would be any change to the cutting operation if the feeding channels were positioned to be perpendicular to the sliding rail. That is, the device would still function as intended if the feeding channel were located perpendicular to the sliding rail, therefore such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, 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 provided with a first pushing mechanism (end-effector 121 of robot 220; see paragraph [0034] and fig. 1B), when the mechanical hand is carrying the crystal holder, the first pushing mechanism is configured to push the crystal holder to the slicing chamber (end-effector 121 receives mounting plate 376 which supports an uncut ingot 317 as it is transferred to sawing region 318; see figs. 1B, 3A, and paragraph [0029]).
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 (robot 220 comprises end-effectors 121 and 122; 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 and transfer it to wire sawing chambers 300; see paragraphs [0029, 0034] and fig. 1B).
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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Schmid to make the stockpiling region movable or fixed since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art (see In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)). Schmid as modified does not explicitly disclose whether the stockpiling region (input module 202 and output module 210) is movable or fixed relative to the crystal bar slicer (wire sawing chambers 300). However, it must be either movable or fixed, since it cannot simultaneously be both. Further, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since making the stockpiling region movable would allow an operator to more easily supply fresh ingots to the system (for example, if the stockpiling region is configured as a cart, an empty cart can easily be swapped for a full one). Alternatively, making the stockpiling region fixed could prevent unwanted movement and thereby reduce potential damage to machinery and products (for example, if the stockpiling region is movable, there is a chance it could be shifted into the way of the mechanical hand (robot 220), which could cause damage to various parts of the system).
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 (in order for end-effectors 121, 122 of robot 220 to transfer ingots into sawing region 318, the feeding channel must have an open portion that allows entry into the slicing chamber; see paragraphs [0029, 0034]).
Regarding claim 20, Schmid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Schmid as modified further discloses wherein a roof of the slicing chamber is further provided with at least one discharging port (ingot supporting element 611 appears to act as a feeding/discharge port for ingot 317; see figs. 6A-6B), the at least one discharging port is in communication with the outside of the frame body (ingot supporting element 611 is connected to the outside of frame 601; see figs. 6A-6B), and the crystal holder is capable of leaving the slicing chamber through the at least one discharging port (mounting plate 376 is configured to support ingot 317 during transfer and sawing operations, and therefore is capable of being transferred out of the slicing chamber through the discharging port once ingot 317 has been sawed; see paragraphs [0029, 0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Schmid to make the discharging port be located on a sidewall 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). Schmid as modified discloses a discharging port on the roof of wire sawing chamber 300 (see figs. 6A-6B). However, it does not appear that modifying the device to have a discharging port on the side wall instead of the roof would impact operation of the device. That is, as long as the discharging port is in a position that does not interfere with the operation of the device, it can be freely relocated. Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (US 20140083407) in view of Riekenbrauck (US 20210354933).
Regarding claim 8, Schmid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Schmid does not explicitly disclose wherein the stockpiling region is located on a material mover.
Riekenbrauck discloses wherein the stockpiling region is located on a material mover (products 4 are conveyed on transport device 6, where they are picked up by transfer device 16; see paragraph [0095] and fig. 1).
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 Riekenbrauck to place the stockpiling region on a material mover. Riekenbrauck discloses a known technique of transferring materials from a stockpiling region such that they are in position to be picked up by a mechanical hand (transfer device 16). Riekenbrauck further discloses that this results in efficient handling and transfer without the need for sorting, aligning, or separating the products beforehand (see paragraph [0019]). In the similar system of Schmid, the stockpiling region is fixed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to modify Schmid in view of the teachings of Riekenbrauck in order to yield the expected result of increased efficiency.
Schmid as modified further discloses when the material mover moves to the preset moving region, the mechanical hand is capable of picking up the crystal holder from the stockpiling region or placing the crystal holder on the stockpiling region (end-effectors 121, 122 of robot 220 convey mounting plate 376 and cut ingot 317 to the output module 210; see paragraph [0033]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 10-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the claim limitations interpreted under 112(f), Examiner notes that the generic placeholders are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions. Since the amendments did not add sufficient structure to these claim limitations, the interpretation of the terms under 112(f) is maintained. Specifically regarding the recitation of a “material mover” to replace the “material-conveying mechanism”, it is still not made explicitly clear what structure is intended; the term “material mover” could encompass a wide variety of structures (for example, a conveyor belt, wheeled cart, etc.) however, none is sufficiently described in the specification or drawings. To avoid interpretation of the above-mentioned terms under 112(f), sufficient structure must be recited so that at least one prong of the three-prong test is not met (see MPEP § 2181, subsection I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 6135103 to Katamachi, drawn to a wire saw for slicing brittle materials with an ingot loading and unloading mechanism; US 6182729 to Banzawa, drawn to a system and method for processing ingots; US 5904136 to Nagatsuka, drawn to a wire saw and slicing method thereof; and US 9876078 to Noguchi, drawn to a method for slicing semiconductor single crystal ingots.
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