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 plurality of mechanical hands (see at least claim 1) 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
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: at line 18, “discharging ports” should be amended to read “discharging port”
Claim 7: “the mechanical hand” should be amended to read “the plurality of mechanical hands” (at least claim 8 requires similar corrections)
Claim 10: “the sliding rail” should be amended to read “the plurality of sliding rails”
Claim 11: “when each of the plurality of mechanical hands” should be amended to read “when one of the plurality of mechanical hands”
Claim 13: “the crystal bar slicer” should be amended to read “the plurality of crystal bar slicers”
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)
“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.
Claims 5 and 8 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 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.
Regarding claim 5, the structure for the holding mechanism, which is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), was not included in the original specification. Therefore, the description of the holding mechanism including a ”cuboid-shaped main body with two holding components” (see addition to paragraph [0050]) is considered to be new matter. Though the structure of the holding mechanism appears to be supported by the drawings (see fig. 6), the specification as originally filed lacks written support for this structure. Likewise, a “plurality of sliding rails” is not supported by the original disclosure – only a singular sliding rail is disclosed in the original specification. Thus, the plurality of sliding rails is considered to be new matter.
Further, it is unclear how the mechanical hand is configured to pick up a crystal holder and a cut crystal bar from the discharging port. The specification states that mechanical hand 7 can unload material from discharging port 16 (see paragraph [0059] of instant specification), but it does not provide sufficient detail explaining how this is achieved in view of the fact that it appears discharging port 16 is covered and thus inaccessible to the mechanical hand (see figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 8, inclusion of the claim limitation “wheeled cart” is considered to be new matter. The original claim 8 recited a “material-conveying mechanism”, which is supported by the original specification (see paragraph [0075] of specification filed 7/30/2023). Claim 8 was amended to recite a “material mover” in claims filed 11/29/2025, and most recently amended to recite a “wheeled cart” in claims filed 4/27/2026. Neither a “material mover” or a “wheeled cart” are supported by the original disclosure. Examiner notes that in the final rejection dated 2/2/2026, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) was raised due to the term “material mover”, since the specification lacks the corresponding structure. A question was posed as to what is considered to be a “mover” – would any device capable of moving material be sufficient (see pg. 6 of final rejection dated 2/2/2026)? A variety of examples were provided, including a “wheeled cart”. Examiner notes that this was merely exemplary, and not intended to be construed as a suggestion supported by the original disclosure. In order to resolve the present 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection due to this term, Examiner recommends that any recitation of the “wheeled cart” be deleted from the claim.
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 how the mechanical hand can be configured to pick up a crystal holder and a cut crystal bar from the discharging port. The claim requires that the discharging port be located on the roof of the slicing chamber, which is indicated by reference character 16 in fig. 3. Looking at fig. 3 in conjunction with figs. 1 and 2, it does not appear that a mechanical hand can access discharging port 16. In figs. 1 and 2, the top surface of the machine appears to be covered, thus it appears that access to the slicing chamber from discharging port 16 is prevented. The specification states that mechanical hand 7 can unload material from discharging port 16 (see paragraph [0059] of instant specification), but it does not provide sufficient detail explaining how this is achieved. Since the description does not provide sufficient detail to apprise one of ordinary skill in the art how unloading occurs at discharging port 16, and the drawings suggest that material cannot enter or exit through discharging port 16, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim limitation “holding mechanism” 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. It is unclear what structure allows for the holding mechanism to drive the crystal holder to move towards or away from the cutting shaft, as required by at least claim 5. 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, 10-12, and 19-20 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 plurality of crystal bar slicers (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) and a stockpiling region (input module 202 supplies uncut ingots and output module 210 receives sawed ingots; see paragraph [0029] and fig. 2), wherein each of the plurality of crystal bar slicers comprises a frame body (frame 305; see fig. 3A), a cutting shaft (wire guide cylinders 321, 322; see fig. 3A) and a holding mechanism (support table 312; see paragraph [0038] and 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 (wire guide cylinders 321, 322 are located in sawing region 318; 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 can be moved vertically in the Z-direction either towards or away from wire guide cylinders 321, 322; see paragraph [0038] and fig. 3A), the crystal bar slicing system further includes a sliding rail (rail 221; see fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schmid does not explicitly disclose a plurality of mechanical hands or a plurality of sliding rails.
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 and a plurality of sliding rails 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, a plurality of mechanical hands and sliding rails could be added without changing the overall function of the system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including a plurality of these structures results in increased efficiency, since including multiple mechanical hands means multiple ingots can be loaded/unloaded at the same time. Likewise, including multiple sliding rails would allow a mechanical hand to move freely without interfering with movement of other mechanical hands.
Schmid as modified does not explicitly disclose that the slicing chamber comprises at least one discharging port, and the at least one discharging ports is provided on a roof of the slicing chamber, the plurality of sliding rails are disposed on a ceiling.
Katamachi discloses that the slicing chamber comprises at least one 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), and the at least one discharging ports is provided on a roof of the slicing chamber (opening 36 is formed at top 35 of cover 34; see col. 3, lines 12-17 and fig. 1), the sliding rail is disposed on a ceiling (rail 52 is formed along a ceiling of a structure such as a plant; see col. 3, lines 29-31 and fig. 3).
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 and 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 further discloses the plurality of mechanical hands are slidably disposed on the plurality of sliding rails, so that the mechanical hands are capable of moving between the stockpiling region and the plurality of crystal bar slicers (as modified to include a plurality of mechanical hands and sliding rails, a plurality of robots 220 are disposed on the plurality of rails 221 so that robots 220 can move between input module 202, output module 210 and rails 221; see paragraph [0034]), and each of the plurality of crystal bar slicers comprises two mechanical hands (as modified to include a plurality of mechanical hands, each wafer sawing chamber 300 can include two robots 220), one of the two mechanical hands is configured to pick up a crystal holder and a crystal bar to be cut from the stockpiling region and put the crystal holder and the crystal bar to be cut into a slicing chamber from the feeding port (one of robots 220 can pick up mounting plate 376 to transfer uncut ingots from input module 202 to wire sawing chamber 300; see paragraph [0034]), and another one of the two mechanical hands is configured to pick up the crystal holder and a cut crystal bar from the discharging port and convey the crystal holder and the cut crystal bar to the stockpiling region (as modified to include a discharging port, the other robot 220 can be configured to pick up mounting plate 376 to transfer a cut ingot to output 210; see paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Schmid to include two mechanical hands per slicer. As discussed above, inclusion of multiple mechanical hands can increase efficiency since it would allow for multiple ingots to be loaded/unloaded at the same time. In the case of there being two mechanical hands per slicer, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of having one hand load an ingot while the other hand unloads the ingot includes increased efficiency. If only one hand is included, processing time will drastically increase since the hand will need to constantly reposition and transfer ingots to and from the machine – if there are two, one can retrieve an uncut ingot at the same time the other hand is removing the cut ingot.
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 that 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 11, Schmid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Schmid as modified further discloses wherein each of the plurality of mechanical hands is provided with a first pushing mechanism (end-effector 121 of robot 220; see paragraph [0034] and fig. 1B), when each of the plurality of mechanical hands 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 as it is transferred to sawing region 318; see paragraph [0029] and figs. 1B, 3A).
Regarding claim 12, Schmid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Schmid as modified further discloses wherein each of the plurality of mechanical hands comprises two holding arms opposite to each other (as modified to include a plurality of mechanical hands, robots 220 each comprise end-effectors 121, 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 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).
Regarding claim 20, Schmid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Schmid as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a sidewall of the slicing chamber is further provided with at least one discharging port.
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 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 roof of the slicing chamber. Depending on the configuration of the sliding rail and mechanical hands, it may be advantageous to have a discharging port located on the sidewall as well as the roof. 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. Therefore, such a modification would be obvious.
Schmid as modified further discloses wherein a sidewall of the slicing chamber is further provided with at least one discharging port (as modified, an additional discharging port can be included on a sidewall of the slicing chamber), the at least one discharging port is in communication with the outside of the frame body, and the crystal holder is capable of leaving the slicing chamber through one of the at least one discharging ports (as modified to include an additional discharging port on the sidewall, opening 36 is formed in communication with the outside of the frame so that ingot 30 may be unloaded from processing chamber 17; see col. 3, lines 12-17 and fig. 1).
Claims 8 and 13 are 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 8, Schmid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Schmid as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the stockpiling region is located on a wheeled cart.
Albrecht discloses a wheeled cart (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 include a wheeled cart. 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 of Albrecht can be included in the system of Schmid such that the stockpiling region/storage area is located on the wheeled cart. Such a modification would be obvious in order to allow operators to easily transfer ingots to and from the system.
Schmid as modified further discloses wherein when the wheeled cart 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 (as modified to include a wheeled cart, robots 220 are able to pick up mounting plate 376 from input module 202 or place mounting plate 376 in output module 210; see paragraph [0034]).
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 with respect to claims 5, 7-8, 10-13, and 19-20 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 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, as discussed above, amendment of the term “material mover” to “wheeled cart” is considered new matter since the original disclosure does not support this term. Specifically, fig. 7 appears to be diagrammatic in nature, and element 32 is not provided with sufficient structure to reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art that it is intended to represent a wheeled cart. The interpretation of “first pushing mechanism” and “holding mechanism” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20100126490 to Bakshi, drawn to a method and apparatus for cutting and cleaning wafers in a wire saw; US 20150202797 to Nakamoto, drawn to a wire saw and workpiece machining method employing the same.
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