Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/15/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Applicant argues that Niemeyer is not from the same or similar field of endeavor as Hayashi (see pages 13-14, arguments), which was a reference lied upon in the previous office action. Regarding Niemeyer’s relevance to the prior art rejections provided below, MPEP 2141.01(a)(I) states:
“In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.”
Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that the reference relied upon should be from the same or similar field of endeavor of the claimed invention. Niemeyer and the claim invention are both within the field of machining tools which are configured to cut a workpiece (see [0060-0061] of Niemeyer); furthermore, Niemeyer is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, as both consider workpiece machining processes and control thereof.
For the above stated reasons, Examiner has either found Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive or moot as being directed towards a reference not being relied upon.
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, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN 104916585) in view of Niemeyer (US 20130273811) and Okunari (JP 201188223).
Regarding claim 1, Gong 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 Figure 1, see also lines 444-464), comprising:
an abrasive cut-off wheel to make separating cuts through a test specimen (see cutting knife 6, Figure 1; wherein lines 47-50 disclose a diamond grinding wheel);
a drive motor for rotationally driving the cut-off wheel around a rotation axis (wherein the rotary shaft 53 to which the cutter 6 is attached is rotationally driven by motor 54, see lines 398-399 and 45-47);
a work table (32) defining an xz-plane and having clamping or mounting grooves located in an upper surface of the work table and oriented in at least one of an x direction or a Z direction (wherein Examiner notes that the claimed xz plane is analogous to the xy plane; see the block 32, defined in and xy plane, having rails 322 and screw rod 381 defining grooves on the upper surface of the block 32; see also lines 340-356);
a clamp (362) for clamping the test specimen in the clamp, the clamp mounted to the clamping or mounting grooves in the upper surface of the work table (see clamp 362, lines 461-464 and 310-311);
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 (wherein the block 32 is displaceable in the x direction, see X direction moving member 37 and lines 318-329; wherein the cutting knife 6 is displaceable in the y direction due to Y axis moving member 43, see Figure 1 and lines 375-388 and 401-409);
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 (wherein the block 32 is displaceable in the x direction, see X direction moving member 37 and lines 318-329; wherein the cutting knife 6 is displaceable in the y direction due to Y axis moving member 43, see Figure 1 and lines 375-388 and 401-409);
a first motor 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 (wherein the workpiece is rotated by pulse motor 340, see lines 309-311; see also lines 436-442);
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 Z-axis moving member 55 for moving the unit holder 51 and cutting knife 6 in the Z direction, see lines 401-409; see Figures 5a, 5b and 6, including arrows Za and Zb; see also lines 518-539; lines 42-44, 70-74, 114-131, 194-196); and
a program controller (control unit 9) 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 (wherein lines 419-442 disclose that the control unit 9 comprises a computer which includes a CPU that performs arithmetic processing in accordance with a control program, including controlling of the rotation of the chuck table, wherein a plurality of dividing lines are created as a result of cutting and moment of the cutting blade 6 and wafer in the X, Y, and Z directions, in combination with rotation of the wafer; see also Figures 3, 5A, 5B and 7; see also lines 133-142, 171-176, 335-338, 363-365, 415-424, 466-477, 533-546, 572-579).
However, Gong is silent regarding the entirety of the cutting knife and spindle structure, and does not explicitly teach coolant nozzles for cooling of the cut-off wheel and the test specimen when performing the separating cuts in the closed working space. Furthermore while Gong describes the configuration of the chuck table and machine, Gong does not explicitly teach the clamp is releasably mounted, a machine housing accommodating the cut-off wheel, the coolant nozzles, the work table, and the clamp, 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 such that cutting is performed when the hood is closed.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices configured to perform cutting of a workpiece, Okunari (JP 201188223) teaches of chuck table (20) which also has clamps (26), see [0019-0020], and the clamp being releasably mounted (wherein [0035] teaches that a new chuck table 20 can be mounted, or that the chuck table 20, and thus the clamps, can be disassembled, cleaned, and reassembled, i.e. the clamp element is 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 modified the apparatus of Gong to include the capability of disassembling and dismounting the chuck table, and thus clamp element, as taught by Okunari. One would be motivated to do so in order to replace the chuck table or to perform routine maintenance on the apparatus, see [0035] of Okunari.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Niemeyer teaches coolant nozzles for cooling of the cut-off wheel and the test specimen when performing machining in the closed working space ([0055-0057]: see coolant nozzles in plural, as well as nozzles 206 in Figure 11; ), as well as a machine housing accommodating the cut-off wheel, the coolant nozzles, the work table, and the clamp, 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 such that cutting is performed 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 coolant nozzles and housing chamber of Niemeyer into the invention of Gong. 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]. Gong does contemplate considering temperature as a factor during machining in at least lines 506-509.Furthermore, incorporation of the coolant nozzles would assist with the aid of removal of excess debris in the machining operation ([0056]) and dissipate unwanted or excess heat ([0055], [0069-0070]). Lastly, the combination of Niemeyer into the invention of Gong 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 claim 8, Gong in view of Niemeyer and Okunari teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Gong further teaches wherein said first motor is capable of rotating said test specimen about said first rotation axis (Gong: wherein the predetermined dividing lines 101 are formed in a lattice shape, see 447-451, 466-477,481-504, 512-524, and Figure 3; see also lines 309-311 and 436-437).
However, modified Gong 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 Gong 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 Gong 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, Gong in view of Niemeyer and Okunari teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Gong further teaches further comprising 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 (Gong: see lines 419-424 describing a camera or imaging member disposed at the distal end of the spindle housing, and transmitting the image to the control unit for determination of the diameter/radius is also described, see lines 526-556: the imaging member is operated to image an area in which the incision groove is formed, and the image is transmitted to the control member…the control member 9 obtains the amount cut, delta Z, of the cutting blade and wherein lines 555-556 describe an actual measurement value of the radius, and wherein lines 537-539 describe the steps take place between cuts, i.e. ‘next cut’, see also 572-579 describing the control member 9 obtaining the radius of the cutting blade, wherein the citations provided herein also describe adjusting the sequential following cuts based on the measurements and determinations made by the controller; see also lines 588-596, 64-74, 111-112).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN 104916585) in view of Niemeyer (US 20130273811) and Okunari (JP 201188223), and in further view of Ham (US 2010/0260569).
Regarding claim 2, Gong in view of Niemeyer and Okunari teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Gong further teaches wherein said first motor drives to rotatably position said test specimen about said first rotation axis (Gong: see pulse motor 340, lines 309-311).
However, modified Gong does not explicitly teach the motor is a stepping motor and wherein there is a worm drive driven by the stepping motor.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices incorporating movement in the context of machining, Ham teaches of a motor comprising a stepping motor which drives a worm drive (see [0027] regarding the worm gear system and stepping motor, as well as claim 5 teaching of both in combination).
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 drive system as taught by Ham into the invention of modified Gong. Ham intimates and suggests that these worm and stepping motors are often incorporated into devices which rotate a shaft; one would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Ham because the configuration provides sufficient reaction forces exerted during working on a workpiece and increases ease of use (see [0027]).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN 104916585) in view of Niemeyer (US 20130273811) and Okunari (JP 201188223), and in further view of Schmidt (US 7645103).
Regarding claim 3, Gong in view of Niemeyer and Okunari teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Gong 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 modified Gong. 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, Gong as modified above teaches the claimed invention, wherein modified Gong 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 9, Gong as modified above teaches the claimed invention, wherein modified Gong further teaches wherein said first motor or said second motor is capable of rotating said test specimen 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 Gong 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 Gong 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 Gong would not operate differently with the claimed range of rotation, as the workpiece is already rotatable about both the first and second axes as modified, 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, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN 104916585) in view of Niemeyer (US 20130273811) and Okunari (JP 201188223), and in further view of Boucher (US 20040112360).
Regarding claim 5, Gong in view of Niemeyer and Okunari teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Gong does not explicitly teach a joystick, said joystick 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.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of workpiece dicing apparatuses, Boucher teaches of a joystick, said joystick 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 (see [0046-0048], [0050], and joysticks 142 in Figure 9).
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 user input and joystick controls as taught by Boucher into the invention of modified Gong. While Gong describes a control program and input interface (94) in lines 426-442, 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.
Regarding claim 6, Gong in view of Niemeyer and Okunari teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Gong does not explicitly teach further comprising a first manual rotary control knob, said first manual rotary control knob 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.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of workpiece dicing apparatuses, Boucher teaches of further comprising a first manual rotary control knob, said first manual rotary control knob 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 (see [0046-0048], [0050], and joysticks 142 in Figure 9).
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 user input and joystick controls as taught by Boucher into the invention of modified Gong. While Gong describes a control program and input interface (94) in lines 426-442, 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN 104916585) in view of Niemeyer (US 20130273811), Okunari (JP 201188223), Schmidt (US 7645103), and in further view of Boucher (US 20040112360).
Regarding claim 7, Gong in view of Niemeyer, Okunari, and Schmidt teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Gong does not explicitly teach a second manual rotary control knob, said second manual rotary control knob 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.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of workpiece dicing apparatuses, Boucher teaches of a second manual rotary control knob, said second manual rotary control knob 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 (see [0046-0048], [0050], and joysticks 142 in Figure 9).
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 user input and joystick controls as taught by Boucher into the invention of modified Gong. While Gong describes a control program and input interface (94) in lines 426-442, 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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN 104916585) in view of Niemeyer (US 20130273811) and Okunari (JP 201188223), and in further view of Hayashi (US 20010035535).
Regarding claim 11, Gong in view of Niemeyer and Okunari teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Gong does not explicitly teach wherein said diameter measuring device comprises a laser measuring device.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Hayashi teaches wherein said diameter measuring device comprises a laser measuring device ([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], [0006], [0027], [0032-0034] describing light emitting and light receiving means; see also [0027-0028], [0030], [0038]).
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 structure of the cutting blade detection mechanism as taught by Hayashi into the invention of modified Gong. Both Gong and Hayashi have the goal of monitoring the status of the cutting blade during workpiece processing in order to ensure the blade is replaced when necessary (Hayashi: [0004]; Gong: lines 588-591). One would be motivated to do so because the mechanism of Hayashi is able to always detect the state of the cutting blade with stability and high accuracy (see [0005]), which is an improvement upon the imaging device that transmits image information to the controller of Gong, as the measurements taken by the device of Hayashi are specifically geared towards the cutting blade alone (i.e. direct versus indirect measurements).
Claim(s) 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN 104916585) in view of Okunari (JP 201188223) and Schmidt (US 7645103).
Regarding claim 12, Gong discloses a cut-off machine (see Figure 1), comprising:
a cut-off wheel to make separating cuts through a test specimen (see cutting knife 6, Figure 1; wherein lines 47-50 disclose a diamond grinding wheel);
a drive motor for rotationally driving the cut-off wheel around a rotation axis (wherein the rotary shaft 53 to which the cutter 6 is attached is rotationally driven by motor 54, see lines 398-399 and 45-47);
a work table (32) defining an xz-plane and having clamping or mounting grooves located in an upper surface of the work table and oriented in at least one of an x direction or a Z direction (wherein Examiner notes that the claimed xz plane is analogous to the xy plane; see the block 32, defined in and xy plane, having rails 322 and screw rod 381 defining grooves on the upper surface of the block 32; see also lines 340-356);
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 (wherein the block 32 is displaceable in the x direction, see X direction moving member 37 and lines 318-329; wherein the cutting knife 6 is displaceable in the y direction due to Y axis moving member 43, see Figure 1 and lines 375-388 and 401-409);
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 (wherein the block 32 is displaceable in the x direction, see X direction moving member 37 and lines 318-329; wherein the cutting knife 6 is displaceable in the y direction due to Y axis moving member 43, see Figure 1 and lines 375-388 and 401-409); and
a test specimen positioning device mounted on the work table by the clamping or mounting grooves in the upper surface of the work table (see chuck table 36 mounted on the block 32 by the grooves formed by the rails 322 and screw rod 381) and including
a clamp to clamp the test specimen in the clamp (see clamp 362, lines 461-464 and 310-311),
a first motor 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 (wherein the workpiece is rotated by pulse motor 340, see lines 309-311; see also lines 436-442).
However, Gong does not explicitly teach that the test specimen positioning device is releasably mounted on the work table, 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 of devices configured to perform cutting of a workpiece, Okunari (JP 201188223) teaches of chuck table (20) which also has clamps (26), see [0019-0020], and test specimen positioning device is releasably mounted (wherein [0035] teaches that a new chuck table 20 can be mounted, or that the chuck table 20, and thus the clamps, can be disassembled, cleaned, and reassembled, i.e. the clamp element is 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 modified the apparatus of Gong to include the capability of disassembling and dismounting the chuck table, and thus clamp element, as taught by Okunari. One would be motivated to do so in order to replace the chuck table or to perform routine maintenance on the apparatus, see [0035] of Okunari.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Schmidt teaches 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 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 modified Gong. 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 13, Gong as modified by Okunari and Schmidt teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Gong 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 (Gong: see Z-axis moving member 55 for moving the unit holder 51 and cutting knife 6 in the Z direction, see lines 401-409; see Figures 5a, 5b and 6, including arrows Za and Zb; see also lines 518-539; lines 42-44, 70-74, 114-131, 194-196); and
a program controller (Gong: control unit 9) 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 (wherein lines 419-442 disclose that the control unit 9 comprises a computer which includes a CPU that performs arithmetic processing in accordance with a control program, including controlling of the rotation of the chuck table, wherein a plurality of dividing lines are created as a result of cutting and moment of the cutting blade 6 and wafer in the X, Y, and Z directions, in combination with rotation of the wafer; see also Figures 3, 5A, 5B and 7; see also lines 133-142, 171-176, 335-338, 363-365, 415-424, 466-477, 533-546, 572-579).
Claim(s) 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN 104916585) in view of Okunari (JP 201188223).
Regarding claim 14, Gong discloses a cut-off machine (see Figure 1), comprising:
a cut-off wheel to make separating cuts through a test specimen (see cutting knife 6, Figure 1; wherein lines 47-50 disclose a diamond grinding wheel);
a drive motor for rotationally driving the cut-off wheel around a rotation axis (wherein the rotary shaft 53 to which the cutter 6 is attached is rotationally driven by motor 54, see lines 398-399 and 45-47);
a work table (32) defining an xz-plane and having clamping or mounting grooves located in an upper surface of the work table and oriented in at least one of an x direction or a Z direction (wherein Examiner notes that the claimed xz plane is analogous to the xy plane; see the block 32, defined in and xy plane, having rails 322 and screw rod 381 defining grooves on the upper surface of the block 32; see also lines 340-356);
a test specimen positioning device mounted on the work table by the clamping or mounting grooves in the upper surface of the work table (see chuck table 36 mounted on the block 32 by the grooves formed by the rails 322 and screw rod 381) and including a clamp to clamp the test specimen in the clamp (see clamp 362, lines 461-464 and 310-311);
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 (wherein the block 32 is displaceable in the x direction, see X direction moving member 37 and lines 318-329; wherein the cutting knife 6 is displaceable in the y direction due to Y axis moving member 43, see Figure 1 and lines 375-388 and 401-409);
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 (wherein the block 32 is displaceable in the x direction, see X direction moving member 37 and lines 318-329; wherein the cutting knife 6 is displaceable in the y direction due to Y axis moving member 43, see Figure 1 and lines 375-388 and 401-409);
a first motor 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 (wherein the workpiece is rotated by pulse motor 340, see lines 309-311; see also lines 436-442); 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 (see lines 419-424 describing a camera or imaging member disposed at the distal end of the spindle housing, and transmitting the image to the control unit for determination of the diameter/radius is also described, see lines 526-556: the imaging member is operated to image an area in which the incision groove is formed, and the image is transmitted to the control member…the control member 9 obtains the amount cut, delta Z, of the cutting blade and wherein lines 555-556 describe an actual measurement value of the radius, and wherein lines 537-539 describe the steps take place between cuts, i.e. ‘next cut’, see also 572-579 describing the control member 9 obtaining the radius of the cutting blade, wherein the citations provided herein also describe adjusting the sequential following cuts based on the measurements and determinations made by the controller; see also lines 588-596, 64-74, 111-112).
However, Gong does not explicitly teach that the test specimen positioning device is releasably mounted on the work table .However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices configured to perform cutting of a workpiece, Okunari (JP 201188223) teaches of chuck table (20) which also has clamps (26), see [0019-0020], test specimen positioning device is releasably mounted (wherein [0035] teaches that a new chuck table 20 can be mounted, or that the chuck table 20, and thus the clamps, can be disassembled, cleaned, and reassembled, i.e. the clamp element is 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 modified the apparatus of Gong to include the capability of disassembling and dismounting the chuck table, and thus clamp element, as taught by Okunari. One would be motivated to do so in order to replace the chuck table or to perform routine maintenance on the apparatus, see [0035] of Okunari.
Regarding claim 16, Gong as modified by Okunari teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Gong 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 (Gong: see Z-axis moving member 55 for moving the unit holder 51 and cutting knife 6 in the Z direction, see lines 401-409; see Figures 5a, 5b and 6, including arrows Za and Zb; see also lines 518-539; lines 42-44, 70-74, 114-131, 194-196); and
a program controller (Gong: control unit 9) 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 (wherein lines 419-442 disclose that the control unit 9 comprises a computer which includes a CPU that performs arithmetic processing in accordance with a control program, including controlling of the rotation of the chuck table, wherein a plurality of dividing lines are created as a result of cutting and moment of the cutting blade 6 and wafer in the X, Y, and Z directions, in combination with rotation of the wafer; see also Figures 3, 5A, 5B and 7; see also lines 133-142, 171-176, 335-338, 363-365, 415-424, 466-477, 533-546, 572-579).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights