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 Arguments
Examiner thanks Applicant for their submission of the Terminal Disclaimer to U.S. Patent 11,660,719, filed 1/26/2026. The previous Double Patenting Rejection has been withdrawn as a result. Furthermore, while the Terminal Disclaimer has been filed, a decision regarding the acceptance or denial of the Terminal Disclaimer is pending.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed towards the subject matter incorporated within the amendments filed 1/26/2026, Examiner directs Applicant to the updated grounds of rejection supplied below, as necessitated by amendment.
Regarding applicant’s arguments directed towards the lifting mechanism of Hayashi (see pages 9-10 of Arguments), Examiner has carefully considered but has not found persuasive. In paragraph [0026], Hayashi indicates that displacement of the cutting blade occurs while the chuck table is also being displaced:
That is, as the cutting blade 54 is mounted on the spindle unit 5 which is positioned by being moved and adjusted in the direction indicated by the arrow Y that is the indexing direction and in the direction indicated by the arrow Z that is the cutting direction, and is rotatively driven. By moving the chuck table 33 in the feed direction along the lower side of the cutting blade 54, therefore, the semiconductor wafer 1 held on the chuck table 33 is cut along the predetermined cutting line with the cutting blade 54, and divided into semiconductor chips.
The rotation of the cutting blade 54, which serves to cut the semiconductor wafer, takes place while the cutting blade is being moved in the Z direction, and while the chuck table 33 is being moved in the feed direction.
Thus, Applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive, and this action is made final herein.
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:
a lifting mechanism in claims 1, 13, and 16. When looking to the specification, the lifting mechanism is described to be element 26 in Figure 2, including a pivoting mechanism (see [0057]).
a diameter measuring device in claims 10 and 14. When looking to the specification, the diameter measuring device is described as a laser measuring device (see [0059]).
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 20010035535) in view of Fuwa (US 4794736) and Niemeyer (US 20130273811).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses a cut-off machine for metallographic sample preparation using a rotating abrasive cut-off wheel for making separating cuts through a test specimen to cut off sample pieces of the test specimen in a closable working space (see Abstract), comprising:
a cut-off wheel to make separating cuts through a test specimen (see cutting blade 54; see [0026-0027]);
a drive for rotationally driving the cut-off wheel around a rotation axis (see [0021]: rotary drive mechanism for driving the cutting blade 54);
coolant nozzles for cooling of the cut-off wheel and the test specimen when performing the separating cuts in the closed working space (see coolant supply nozzles 573a, 573b, [0022]);
a work table defining an xz-plane and having clamping or mounting grooves oriented in at least one of an x direction or a z direction (wherein support plate 331 has grooves oriented in the x direction for mounting to rails 32, see Figure 2);
a clamp for clamping the test specimen (see chuck 332), the clamp mounted to the clamping or mounting grooves in the work table (wherein chuck 332 is mounted on the support plate 331, see [0019], and thus indirectly mounted to the grooves of support plate 331 which mate with rails 32);
at least one of the work table or the cut-off wheel displaceable in a first linear displacement direction in the xz-plane to position the test specimen for separating cuts with the cut-off wheel in the first linear displacement direction in the xz-plane relative to the cut-off wheel (see displacement directions in the X and Y directions, as shown in Figure 2; see also [0018-0020], [0026]);
at least one of the work table or the cut-off wheel displaceable in a second linear displacement direction in the xz-plane perpendicularly to the first linear displacement direction to position the test specimen for separating cuts with the cut-off wheel in the second linear displacement direction in the xz-plane relative to the cut-off wheel (see displacement directions in the X and Y directions, as shown in Figure 2; see also [0018-0020], [0026]);
a first drive for rotatably positioning the test specimen clamped in the clamp about a first rotation axis prior to or between performing separating cuts, wherein the first rotation axis is perpendicular to the xz-plane (see [0019], wherein there is a rotation mechanism for turning the chuck table 33; see also [0025-0026]);
a machine housing accommodating the cut-off wheel, the coolant nozzles, the work table, and the clamp (see at least Figure 1);
a lifting mechanism for advancing the cut-off wheel on, into and through the test specimen in a y-direction perpendicularly to the rotation axis of the cut-off wheel to make a separating cut with the cut-off wheel in the test specimen clamped in the clamp (see movement of the cutting blade 54 along the Z direction, which is parallel to the axis of rotation of the table 33 and perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the blade 54, see also [0021]; see also [0026]: as the cutting blade 54 is mounted on the spindle unit 5 which is positioned by being moved and adjusted in the direction indicated by the arrow Y that is the indexing direction and in the direction indicated by the arrow Z that is the cutting direction, and is rotatively driven);
execute a plurality of separating cuts through the test specimen at different positions in the xz-plane (see at least [0025] disclosing alignment means to carry out precision alignment by detecting a cutting line formed on the semiconductor wafer 11, wherein [0026] discloses cutting wafer into chips).
However, Hayashi does not explicitly teach the cut off wheel is abrasive, that the rotary drive mechanism for rotating the cut off wheel is a motor, that the clamp (332) is releasably mounted to the clamping or mounting grooves of plate (331), that the rotary mechanism for rotating the workpiece includes a motor, wherein the machine housing comprises a covering hood closing the working space while the separating cuts are made and allowing a user to access the test specimen prior to and after the making of the separating cuts. Furthermore, while Figures 5 and 8 show the block diagrams for the detection mechanisms, and that the operations take place by incorporation of detecting means (see [0023], [0027-0030], [0034], [0037]), Hayashi does not explicitly disclose a program controller, i.e. a program controller that controls the first and second linear displacement directions and the first motor and that is configured to automatically and successively execute a plurality of separating cuts through the test specimen at different positions in the xz-plane and at different rotational positions of the test specimen about the first axis when the hood is closed, thereby automatically successively cutting off a plurality of sample pieces from the test specimen at different positions in the xz-plane and at different angles with different cuts without re-clamping the test specimen between the cuts, and without user intervention.
In other portions of the device, however, Hayashi does teach of motor(s) as a drive source, including a motor for rotation, see at least [0019-0021]. From the same or similar field of endeavor, Fuwa teaches of a workpiece processing device employing an abrasive cut-off wheel (see abrasive wheel 28 for severing the workpiece 26 into a plurality of pieces, Col. 7 lines 62-67), a drive motor for rotationally driving the cut-off wheel around a rotation axis (see motor for the tool 28 disclosed in Col. 7, line 62-Col. 8, line 7); a drive unit (25) comprising a servo valve and motors for movement of the workpiece (Col. 7, lines 53-61, Col. 10, lines 6-36), and a program controller that controls the first and second linear displacement directions and the first motor and that is configured to automatically and successively execute a plurality of separating cuts through the test specimen at different positions in the xz-plane and at different rotational positions of the test specimen about the first axis, thereby automatically successively cutting off a plurality of sample pieces from the test specimen at different positions in the xz-plane and at different angles with different cuts without re-clamping the test specimen between the cuts, and without user intervention (Col. 10, lines 43-56, Col. 9, lines 19-68; Col. 8, lines 1-33; Col. 12, lines 50-68; Col. 15, lines 25-49).
Hayashi is silent regarding the control element(s) which receive and control the apparatus, and what specific type of drive source is provided within the device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Hayashi to incorporate an abrasive as a cut-off wheel, motors for drive sources, and a program controller for controlling the cutting of the workpiece, as taught by Fuwa. One would be motivated to do so because the control circuitry taught by Fuwa provides a high degree of accurate alignment (Col. 15, lines 31-38; Col. 2, lines 15-22 and 36-51), thus resulting in a better end product and processing accuracy. It is also well known to select a motor as a drive source, and would be considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed motor(s) within the context of workpiece cutting. Furthermore, incorporation of an abrasive species as the cut off wheel within the invention of Hayashi would perform the same function of cutting, as both Hayashi and Fuwa seek to cut workpieces into smaller components, and perform the processing in a similar manner; this modification would be recognized as using a known structure, i.e. an abrasive wheel as the type of cutting wheel, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Niemeyer teaches the machine housing comprises a covering hood closing the working space while the separating cuts are made and allowing a user to access the test specimen prior to and after the making of the separating cuts, such that the separating cuts are made when the hood is closed (please refer to the housing and interior chamber 116, closable by safety doors 118 in Figure 1; wherein the tool on turret 108 and workpiece holding chucks 110, 112 are contained within the chamber 116; wherein [0038] teaches that the user is present during operation, i.e. therein providing access to a user through doors 118).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the housing chamber of Niemeyer into the invention of Hayashi. One would be motivated to do so in order to prevent injury to a user and reduce interference during operation of the numerically controlled machine, thus increasing accuracies and mitigating costs cause by operator errors; see Niemeyer [0038]. Furthermore, Hayashi provides a semi-closed housing (see Figure 1), wherein the combination of Niemeyer into the invention of Hayashi would further bolster protection of the both an operator and the apparatus, thus lengthening the lifespan of the apparatus and reducing costs to replace or maintenance parts.
Regarding the claim limitation directed towards the clamp being releasably mounted to the clamping or mounting grooves in the work table, Hayashi describes that the adsorption chuck (332) is mounted to the support plate (331) in [0019], but is silent on the ability of the chuck (332) to separate from the support plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the elements separable from one another, i.e. incorporating the ability to release the chuck (332) from the support plate (331). One would be motivated to do so in order to enable a user to replace or swap out the adsorption chuck when the chuck becomes worn, damaged, or an alternative chuck is more desirable/better suited for a wafer workpiece. This modification would be recognized as using a known structural technique, i.e. making an components separable from one another, to improve a semiconductor apparatus, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the parts in a separable manner, the modification is considered obvious, see (V.)(C.) of MPEP 2144.04, In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi in view of Fuwa and Niemeyer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Hayashi further teaches wherein said first motor is a stepping motor and wherein said first motor drives a worm drive to rotatably position said test specimen about said first rotation axis (please see at least the combination statement as applied above, as well as reference to the other disclosed motors of Hayashi, i.e. see at least the male screw rod and female block disclosed in [0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi in view of Fuwa and Niemeyer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Hayashi further teaches a first rotary control, said first rotary control permitting a user to manually enter into the program controller a rotational position of the test specimen about the first rotation axis for a separating cut (please refer to the combination statement as applied above, as well as Figure 2A of Fuwa showing the correlation between the external I/O interface 35-3 and the drive circuit 25; see also Col. 10, lines 19-55; see also Col. 9, lines 19-35).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi in view of Fuwa and Niemeyer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Hayashi further teaches wherein said first motor is capable of rotating said test specimen about said first rotation axis (Hayashi: see [0019], wherein the chuck table comprises a rotation mechanism for turning the chuck; wherein Fuwa Col. 10, lines 6-36 teach that table is rotated in order to obtain perform severing along appropriate patterns; see also Fuwa, Col. 7, lines 23-32 and 53-68; see also Figure 3 regarding the semiconductor chips 43-1 to 43-m).
However, modified Hayashi is silent regarding the range of rotation, i.e. rotating said test specimen by at least 90° about said first rotation axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hayashi to have the ability to rotate the workpiece by at least 90° since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hayashi would not operate differently with the claimed range of rotation, as the workpiece is already rotatable, and the device would function appropriately having the claimed range of rotation. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the range of rotation “is “preferably” within the claimed range (specification pp. [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi in view of Fuwa and Niemeyer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Hayashi further teaches a diameter measuring device for measuring a diameter of said cut-off wheel either after a user request or automatically between each of said plurality of separating cuts, and wherein the separating cuts still to be performed after the measurement are automatically adjusted by the program controller on the basis of the measured diameter of the cut-off wheel (Hayashi: 0002]: wherein the cutting blade is worn down by its use and its diameter decreases, wherein the standard position of the cutting direction of the cutting blade needs to be adjusted to cope with a reduction in diameter of the cutting blade and hence, it has a cutting blade detection mechanism; see also [0003], [0032-0034]; see also [0027-0028], [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi in view of Fuwa and Niemeyer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Hayashi further teaches wherein said diameter measuring device comprises a laser measuring device (Hayashi: see [0002-0003], [0027-0028], [0030], [0032-0034], [0038]).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 20010035535) in view of Fuwa (US 4794736) and Niemeyer (US 20130273811), and in further view of Schmidt (US 7645103).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi in view of Fuwa and Niemeyer teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Hawayshi does not explicitly teach wherein said test specimen in said clamp is rotatably positioned by one of said first motor or a second motor about a second rotation axis prior to or between performing separating cuts, wherein the second rotation axis is perpendicular to the first rotation axis.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Schmidt teaches wherein said test specimen in said clamp is rotatably positioned by one of said first motor or a second motor about a second rotation axis prior to or between performing separating cuts, wherein the second rotation axis is perpendicular to the first rotation axis (see Figure 2, as well as spindle driving motor disclosed in Col. 3, lines 39-43, as well as the workpiece table element 55 which may be rotated by a motor, see Col. 4, lines 5-24; see also Col. 2, lines 11-29 and 38-58; see Figures 4 and 5, as well as Col. 3, line 65-Col. 5, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the ability for the workpiece table element to rotate about an axis parallel to the xz-plane, as taught by Schmidt, into the invention of Hayashi. One would be motivated to do so not only because the motors provide high positioning accuracies and sensitively controllable high accelerations (Schmidt: Col. 2, lines 11-18 and 50-58), but also because the additional rotational axis allows for additional control when necessary, thus increasing the versatility of the device and capabilities of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi as modified above teaches the claimed invention, wherein modified Hayashi further teaches wherein said test specimen in said clamp is rotatably positioned by said second motor about said second axis of rotation (please refer to the combination statement as applied above, as well as Figures 4 and 5 of Schmidt; see Schmidt: Col. 4, lines 5-24; see also Col. 2, lines 11-29 and 38-58; see Figures 4 and 5, as well as Col. 3, line 65-Col. 5, line 7).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi as modified above teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Hayashi further teaches a second rotary control, said second rotary control permitting a user to manually enter into the program controller a rotational position of the test specimen about the second rotation axis for a separating cut (wherein the combination of Hayashi as modified teaches the claimed invention, wherein Schmidt provides the additional second axis of rotation, and wherein Fuwa also provides interface 35-3 for controlling the movements; see Figure 2A of Fuwa showing the correlation between the external I/O interface 35-3 and the drive circuit 25; see Fuwa Col. 10, lines 19-55 and Col. 9, lines 19-35).
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi in view of Fuwa and Niemeyer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Hayashi further teaches wherein said first motor or said second motor is capable of rotating said test specimen by at least 90° about said second rotation axis (see at least the combination statement as applied above, as well as Schmidt: Col. 4, lines 5-24; see also Col. 2, lines 11-29 and 38-58; see Figures 4 and 5, as well as Col. 3, line 65-Col. 5, line 7).
However, modified Hayashi is silent regarding the range of rotation, i.e. rotating said test specimen by at least 90° about said second rotation axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hayashi to have the ability to rotate the workpiece by at least 90° since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hayashi would not operate differently with the claimed range of rotation, as the workpiece is already rotatable about both the first and second axes, and the device would function appropriately having the claimed range of rotation. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the range of rotation “is “preferably” within the claimed range (specification pp. [0020]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 20010035535) in view of Fuwa (US 4794736) and Niemeyer (US 20130273811), and in further view of Boucher (US 20040112360).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi in view of Fuwa and Niemeyer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Hayashi further teaches permitting a user to manually enter into the program controller the first and second linear displacement directions and a start position of a separating cut (Fuwa: see Col. 8, lines 1-24, wherein the unit can be operated by a manual drive input for the Z axis so that a necessary feed motion is given to the processing tool).
However, modified Hayashi does not explicitly teach that the user manual drive input comprises a joystick.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of workpiece dicing apparatuses, Boucher teaches of a joystick for permitting a user to manually enter control displacement directions (see Figure 9, joysticks 142; see [0046], [0048], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the joystick controls as taught by Boucher into the invention of modified Hayashi. While Figure 1 of Hayashi shows a panel on the housing, incorporation of manual controls/input would be beneficial in the occurrence of a user wishing to adjust the operation. One would be further motivated to do so because the joy stick elements also allows a user to make offset alignments when necessary when there is a particular cut of interest; see [0046], [0048], and [0050] of Boucher. This modification would be recognized as incorporating a known structure, i.e. joysticks as an interface/input for a user, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 20010035535) in view of Schmidt (US 7645103).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi discloses a cut-off machine, comprising:
a cut-off wheel to make separating cuts through a test specimen (see cutting blade 54; see [0026-0027]);
a drive for rotationally driving the cut-off wheel around a rotation axis (see [0021]: rotary drive mechanism for driving the cutting blade 54);
a work table defining an xz-plane and having clamping or mounting grooves oriented in at least one of an x direction or a z direction (wherein support plate 331 has grooves oriented in the x direction for mounting to rails 32, see Figure 2);
at least one of the work table or the cut-off wheel displaceable in a first linear displacement direction in the xz-plane to position the test specimen in the xz-plane relative to the cut-off wheel for separating cuts with the cut-off wheel (see displacement directions in the X and Y directions, as shown in Figure 2; see also [0018-0020], [0026]);
at least one of the work table or the cut-off wheel displaceable in a second linear displacement direction in the xz-plane perpendicularly to the first linear displacement direction to position the test specimen for separating cuts with the cut-off wheel (see displacement directions in the X and Y directions, as shown in Figure 2; see also [0018-0020], [0026]); and
a test specimen positioning device mounted on the work table by the clamping or mounting grooves and including a clamp to clamp the test specimen (see chuck 332 and support table 333 mounted on the support plate 331 adjacent a location of the grooves of support plate 331 which mate with rails 32, see Figure 2);
a first drive to rotatably position the test specimen about a first rotation axis prior to or between performing separating cuts, wherein the first rotation axis is perpendicular to the xz-plane (see [0019], wherein there is a rotation mechanism for turning the chuck table 33; see also [0025-0026]).
However, Hayashi does not explicitly teach that the rotary drive mechanism for rotating the cut off wheel is a motor, that the clamp (332) is releasably mounted, and that the rotary mechanism for rotating the workpiece includes a first motor, and a second motor to rotatably position the test specimen about a second rotation axis prior to or between performing separating cuts, wherein the second rotation axis is parallel to the xz-plane.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Schmidt (US 7,645,103) teaches of a workpiece processing device, including tool and workpiece displacement mechanisms comprising motors (see Figure 2, as well as spindle driving motor disclosed in Col. 3, lines 39-43, as well as the workpiece table element 55 which may be rotated by a motor, see Col. 4, lines 5-24; see also Col. 2, lines 11-29 and 38-58), and a second motor to rotatably position the test specimen about a second rotation axis prior to or between performing separating cuts, wherein the second rotation axis is parallel to the xz-plane (see Figures 4 and 5, as well as Col. 3, line 65-Col. 5, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the motor elements as well as the ability for the workpiece table element to rotate about an axis parallel to the xz-plane, as taught by Schmidt, into the invention of Hayashi. One would be motivated to do so not only because the motors provide high positioning accuracies and sensitively controllable high accelerations (Schmidt: Col. 2, lines 11-18 and 50-58), but also because the additional rotational axis allows for additional control when necessary, thus increasing the versatility of the device and capabilities of the apparatus.
Regarding the claim limitation directed towards the test specimen positioning device being releasably mounted on the work table, Hayashi describes that the adsorption chuck (332) is mounted to the support plate (331) in [0019], but is silent on the ability of the chuck (332) to separate from the support plate (331), i.e. being releasably mounted. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the elements separable from one another, i.e. incorporating the ability to release the chuck (332) from the support plate (331). One would be motivated to do so in order to enable a user to replace or swap out the adsorption chuck when the chuck becomes worn, damaged, or if an alternative chuck is more desirable/better suited for a wafer workpiece. This modification would be recognized as using a known structural technique, i.e. making an components separable from one another, to improve a semiconductor apparatus, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the parts in a separable manner, the modification is considered obvious, see (V.)(C.) of MPEP 2144.04, In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 20010035535) in view of Schmidt (US 7645103), and in further view of Fuwa (US 4794736).
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi in view of Schmidt teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Hayashi further teaches a lifting mechanism for advancing the cut-off wheel through the test specimen in a y-direction perpendicularly to the rotation axis of the cut-off wheel and parallelly to the first rotation axis (Hayashi: see movement of the cutting blade 54 along the Z direction, which is parallel to the axis of rotation of the table 33 and perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the blade 54, see also [0021]).
While Figures 5 and 8 of Hayashi show the block diagrams for the detection mechanisms, and that the operations take place by incorporation of detecting means (see [0023], [0027-0030], [0034], [0037]), modified Hayashi does not explicitly disclose a program controller that controls the first and second linear displacement directions and the first motor and that is configured to automatically and successively execute a plurality of separating cuts through the test specimen at different positions in the xz-plane and at different rotational positions of the test specimen about the first axis, thereby automatically successively cutting off a plurality of sample pieces from the test specimen at different positions in the xz-plane and at different angles with different cuts without re-clamping of the test specimen between the cuts, and without user intervention.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Fuwa teaches of a workpiece processing device employing a program controller that controls the first and second linear displacement directions and the first motor and that is configured to automatically and successively execute a plurality of separating cuts through the test specimen at different positions in the xz-plane and at different rotational positions of the test specimen about the first axis, thereby automatically successively cutting off a plurality of sample pieces from the test specimen at different positions in the xz-plane and at different angles with different cuts without re-clamping of the test specimen between the cuts, and without user intervention (Col. 10, lines 43-56, Col. 9, lines 19-68; Col. 8, lines 1-33; Col. 12, lines 50-68; Col. 15, lines 25-49).
Hayashi is silent regarding the control element(s) which receive and control the apparatus. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Hayashi to incorporate a program controller for controlling the cutting of the workpiece, as taught by Fuwa. One would be motivated to do so because the control circuitry taught by Fuwa provides a high degree of accurate alignment (Col. 15, lines 31-38; Col. 2, lines 15-22 and 36-51), thus resulting in a better end product and processing accuracy. Furthermore, incorporation of a program controller within the invention of Hayashi would enhance cutting accuracy, as both Hayashi and Fuwa seek to cut workpieces into smaller components, and perform the processing in a similar manner; this modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. a program controller, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 20010035535) in view of Fuwa (US 4794736).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi discloses a cut-off machine (Abstract), comprising:
a cut-off wheel to make separating cuts through a test specimen (see cutting blade 54; see [0026-0027]);
a drive for rotationally driving the cut-off wheel around a rotation axis (see [0021]: rotary drive mechanism for driving the cutting blade 54);
a work table defining an xz-plane and having clamping or mounting grooves oriented in at least one of an x direction or a z direction (wherein support plate 331 has grooves oriented in the x direction for mounting to rails 32, see Figure 2);
a test specimen positioning device mounted on the work table by the clamping or mounting grooves and including a clamp to clamp the test specimen (see chuck 332 and support table 333 mounted on the support plate 331 adjacent a location of the grooves of support plate 331 which mate with rails 32, see Figure 2, wherein the chuck 332 uses adsorption to clamp a workpiece, see [0019]);
at least one of the work table or the cut-off wheel displaceable in a first linear displacement direction in the xz-plane to position the test specimen in the xz-plane relative to the cut-off wheel for separating cuts with the cut-off wheel (see displacement directions in the X and Y directions, as shown in Figure 2; see also [0018-0020], [0026]);
at least one of the work table or the cut-off wheel displaceable in a second linear displacement direction in the xz-plane perpendicularly to the first linear displacement direction to position the test specimen for separating cuts with the cut-off wheel (see displacement directions in the X and Y directions, as shown in Figure 2; see also [0018-0020], [0026]);
a first drive to rotatably position the test specimen about a first rotation axis prior to or between performing separating cuts, wherein the first rotation axis is perpendicular to the xz-plane (see [0019], wherein there is a rotation mechanism for turning the chuck table 33; see also [0025-0026]); and
a diameter measuring device for the cut-off wheel, adapted to measure the diameter of the cut-off wheel between separating cuts, and wherein setting and separating paths for separating cuts to be performed after the measurement are automatically adjusted on the basis of measured diameter values ([0002]: wherein the cutting blade is worn down by its use and its diameter decreases, wherein the standard position of the cutting direction of the cutting blade needs to be adjusted to cope with a reduction in diameter of the cutting blade and hence, it has a cutting blade detection mechanism; see also [0003], [0032-0034]).
However, Hayashi does not explicitly teach that the rotary drive mechanism for rotating the cut off wheel is a motor and that the rotary mechanism for rotating the workpiece includes a first motor, and that the clamp (332) is releasably mounted.
In other portions of the device, however, Hayashi does teach of motor(s) as a drive source, including a motor for rotation, see at least [0019-0021]. From the same or similar field of endeavor, Fuwa teaches of a workpiece processing device employing an abrasive cut-off wheel (see abrasive wheel 28 for severing the workpiece 26 into a plurality of pieces, Col. 7 lines 62-67), a drive motor for rotationally driving the cut-off wheel around a rotation axis (see motor for the tool 28 disclosed in Col. 7, line 62-Col. 8, line 7); a drive unit (25) comprising a servo valve and motors for movement of the workpiece (Col. 7, lines 53-61, Col. 10, lines 6-36).
Hayashi is silent regarding what specific type of drive source is provided within the device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Hayashi to incorporate motors for drive sources, as taught by Fuwa and other structural elements of Hayashi. One would be motivated to do so because the control circuitry taught by Fuwa provides a high degree of accurate alignment (Col. 15, lines 31-38; Col. 2, lines 15-22 and 36-51), thus resulting in a better end product and processing accuracy. It is also well known to select a motor as a drive source, and would be considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed motor(s) within the context of workpiece cutting. Furthermore, this modification would be recognized as using a known structure, i.e. motors within the context of cutting tools, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the claim limitation directed towards the test specimen positioning device being releasably mounted on the work table, Hayashi describes that the adsorption chuck (332) is mounted to the support plate (331) in [0019], but is silent on the ability of the chuck (332) to separate from the support plate (331), i.e. being releasably mounted. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the elements separable from one another, i.e. incorporating the ability to release the chuck (332) from the support plate (331). One would be motivated to do so in order to enable a user to replace or swap out the adsorption chuck when the chuck becomes worn, damaged, or if an alternative chuck is more desirable/better suited for a wafer workpiece. This modification would be recognized as using a known structural technique, i.e. making an components separable from one another, to improve a semiconductor apparatus, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the parts in a separable manner, the modification is considered obvious, see (V.)(C.) of MPEP 2144.04, In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 16, Hayashi in view of Fuwa teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Hayashi further teaches a lifting mechanism for advancing the cut-off wheel through the test specimen in a y-direction perpendicularly to the rotation axis of the cut-off wheel and parallelly to the first rotation axis (Hayashi: see movement of the cutting blade 54 along the Z direction, which is parallel to the axis of rotation of the table 33 and perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the blade 54, see also [0021]).
While Figures 5 and 8 of Hayashi show the block diagrams for the detection mechanisms, and that the operations take place by incorporation of detecting means (see [0023], [0027-0030], [0034], [0037]), Hayashi does not explicitly disclose a program controller, i.e. a program controller that controls the first and second linear displacement directions and the first motor and that is configured to automatically and successively execute a plurality of separating cuts through the test specimen at different positions in the xz-plane and at different rotational positions of the test specimen about the first axis, thereby automatically successively cutting off a plurality of sample pieces from the test specimen at different positions in the xz-plane and at different angles with different cuts without re-clamping of the test specimen between the cuts, and without user intervention.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Fuwa teaches of a workpiece processing device employing a program controller that controls the first and second linear displacement directions and the first motor and that is configured to automatically and successively execute a plurality of separating cuts through the test specimen at different positions in the xz-plane and at different rotational positions of the test specimen about the first axis, thereby automatically successively cutting off a plurality of sample pieces from the test specimen at different positions in the xz-plane and at different angles with different cuts without re-clamping the test specimen between the cuts, and without user intervention (Col. 10, lines 43-56, Col. 9, lines 19-68; Col. 8, lines 1-33; Col. 12, lines 50-68; Col. 15, lines 25-49).
Hayashi is silent regarding the control element(s) which receive and control the apparatus. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Hayashi to incorporate a program controller for controlling the cutting of the workpiece, as taught by Fuwa. One would be motivated to do so because the control circuitry taught by Fuwa provides a high degree of accurate alignment (Col. 15, lines 31-38; Col. 2, lines 15-22 and 36-51), thus resulting in a better end product and processing accuracy. Furthermore, incorporation of a program controller within the invention of Hayashi would enhance cutting accuracy, as both Hayashi and Fuwa seek to cut workpieces into smaller components, and perform the processing in a similar manner; this modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. a program controller, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723