DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 20200398396) in view of Fukuoka (US 2020391410) and Park (US 20190241844).
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto teaches a cutting apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
A chuck table that holds a workpiece (“a chuck table 10 that sucks and holds the workpiece”; Para. [0028]);
A cutting unit having, in a rotatable manner, a cutting blade for cutting the workpiece held by the chuck table (“The processing apparatus 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 according to the first embodiment is a cutting apparatus that performs cutting of the workpiece 200 illustrated in FIG. 2 by a cutting blade 21 (which cutting corresponds to processing)”; Para [0026] and Fig. 3 which shows the blade being attached in a rotatable manner);
an X-axis feeding mechanism for relative cutting feeding of the chuck table and the cutting unit in an X axis direction (“an X-axis moving unit 42 that processing-feeds the chuck table 10 in an X-axis direction parallel with a horizontal direction”; Para [0026]);
a Y-axis feeding mechanism for relative indexing feeding of the chuck table and the cutting unit in a Y axis direction orthogonal to the X-axis direction (“a Y-axis moving unit 43 that indexing-feeds the processing unit 20 in a Y-axis direction parallel with the horizontal direction and orthogonal to the X-axis direction”; Para. [0026]);
Hashimoto discloses a cleaning unit (60) (Paras. [0049] and [0053]) which removes any swarf that was created during processing (Para. [0099]). Hashimoto also teaches a system for cooling the workpiece and tool (Paras. [0040-0041].
However, Hashimoto is silent regarding a cutting apparatus with a cutting liquid supply nozzle that is disposed adjacent to the cutting unit and supplies a cutting liquid to a contact point between the cutting blade and the workpiece; and
a chemical liquid supply nozzle that has a length in the Y-axis direction which is greater than a width of the workpiece and supplies a chemical liquid for preventing adhesion of cutting swarf to a front surface of the workpiece.
Fukuoka teaches a cutting apparatus with a cutting liquid supply nozzle that is disposed adjacent to the cutting unit and supplies a cutting liquid to a contact point between the cutting blade and the workpiece (“the cutting unit 8 has a nozzle 8b disposed laterally of the cutting blade 8a for supplying the cutting fluid to the upper surface of the workpiece 1 and the cutting blade 8a. The cutting fluid supplied from the nozzle 8b is, for example, pure water”; Para. [0036]).
However, Fukuoka is silent regarding a chemical liquid supply nozzle that has a length in the Y-axis direction which is greater than a width of the workpiece and supplies a chemical liquid for preventing adhesion of cutting swarf to a front surface of the workpiece.
Park teaches a chemical liquid supply nozzle that has a length in the Y-axis direction and supplies a chemical liquid for preventing adhesion of cutting swarf to a front surface of the workpiece ("The first and second nozzles 342 and 344 may provide the first deionized water 132 and the chemical solution 134, respectively, onto the substrate W"; Para. [0034].
The applicant’s specification provides no reason for the nozzle to be greater than the width of the workpiece and as such can be seen as a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to incorporate the nozzle taught in Fukuoka to the cutting apparatus taught by Hashimoto in order “to cool the workpiece 1 and the cutting blade 8a” and remove the chips created from the cutting process (Para. [0036] of Fukuoka). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to add the second nozzle taught by Park to the cutting apparatus taught by Hashimoto in view of Fukuoka in order to spray the workpiece with a chemical solution which cleans the workpiece following the cutting process yielding predictable results.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 20200398396) in view of Fukuoka (US 2020391410) and Park (US 20190241844) in further view of Zi (US 20200328075).
Regarding claim 2, Hashimoto in view of Fukuoka and Park teach the cutting apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), however Hashimoto is silent regarding a cutting apparatus wherein the cutting liquid supply nozzle supplies pure water or an aqueous solution of a neutral surface active agent, and
the chemical liquid supply nozzle supplies a chemical liquid selected from a group consisting of ammonia and aqueous hydrogen peroxide, a citric acid solution, sulfuric acid and aqueous hydrogen peroxide, ozone water, phosphoric acid and buffered hydrofluoric acid, and a phosphoric acid solution.
Fukuoka teaches a cutting apparatus wherein the cutting liquid supply nozzle supplies pure water or an aqueous solution of a neutral surface active agent (“the cutting fluid supplied from the nozzle 8b is, for example, pure water”; Para. [0036]).
The applicant’s specification recites “Note that the chemical liquid to be adopted in the present invention is not limited to Chemical Liquids 1 to 6 described below, and any chemical liquid that prevents adhesion of the cutting swarf generated by cutting to the front surface of the workpiece is not excluded from the present invention.” (Para. [0019]).
Park teaches a chemical liquid supply nozzle that supplies a chemical solution (134) which consists of an organic compound (Para. [0037]). However, Park is silent regarding a chemical liquid supply nozzle that supplies a chemical liquid selected from a group consisting of ammonia and aqueous hydrogen peroxide, a citric acid solution, sulfuric acid and aqueous hydrogen peroxide, ozone water, phosphoric acid and buffered hydrofluoric acid, and a phosphoric acid solution.
Zi teaches citric acid being an example of an organic acid that is a part of cleaning solution (Para. [0106]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use citric acid, as taught by Zi, in the chemical solution (134) taught by Park since it is an example of an organic cleaning solution and thus it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the cleaning solution of Hashimoto in view of Park with that of Zi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to spray pure water, as taught in Fukuoka, to the cutting apparatus and workpiece taught by Hashimoto in order “to cool the workpiece 1 and the cutting blade 8a” and remove the chips created from the cutting process (Para. [0036] of Fukuoka). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to spray the workpiece of Hashimoto with a chemical solution, such as citric acid, in order to “remove process particles 136 from the substrate W” (Para. [0034] of Park).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/366182.
Regarding claim 1, Takenouchi teaches a cutting apparatus comprising (“A cutting apparatus comprising”; Clm. 1):
a chuck table that holds a workpiece (“a chuck table for holding thereon a workpiece”; Clm. 1);
a cutting unit having, in a rotatable manner, a cutting blade for cutting the workpiece held by the chuck table (“a cutting unit having a rotatable cutting blade for cutting the workpiece held on the chuck table”; Clm. 1);
an X-axis feeding mechanism for relative cutting feeding of the chuck table and the cutting unit in an Xaxis direction (“an X-axis feed mechanism for cutting-feeding the chuck table and the cutting unit relatively to each other along an X-axis; Clm. 1);
a Y-axis feeding mechanism for relative indexing-feeding of the chuck table and the cutting unit in a Yaxis direction orthogonal to the X-axis direction (“a Y-axis feed mechanism for indexing-feeding the chuck table and the cutting unit relatively to each other along a Y-axis perpendicular to the X-axis”; Clm. 1);
a cutting liquid supply nozzle that is disposed adjacent to the cutting unit and supplies a cutting liquid to a contact point between the cutting blade and the workpiece; and (“a cutting liquid supply nozzle disposed adjacent to the cutting unit, for supplying a cutting liquid to a point of contact between the cutting blade and the workpiece”; Clm. 1);
a chemical liquid supply nozzle that has a length in the Y-axis direction which is greater than a width of the workpiece and supplies a chemical liquid for preventing adhesion of cutting swarf to a front surface of the workpiece (“a rust inhibitor supply nozzle for supplying a rust inhibitor to the workpiece on the chuck table to prevent the electrodes of the devices from being rusted, the rust inhibitor supply nozzle having a length along the Y-axis in excess of the width of the workpiece along the Y-axis”; Clm. 1).
Takenouchi teaches a rust inhibiting spray vice a cleaning spray however, Takenouchi would be capable of spraying a chemical liquid for preventing adhesion of cutting swarf. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to replace the rust inhibiting fluid with a cleansing fluid in order to clean the workpiece.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 2 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/366182 in view of Park (US 20190241844) and in further view of Zi (US 20200328075).
Regarding claim 2, Takenouchi teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 1 (See provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1 above) wherein the cutting liquid supply nozzle supplies pure water or an aqueous solution of a neutral surface active agent, (“wherein the cutting liquid supply nozzle supplies pure water or a mixture of an organic acid and an oxidizing agent as the cutting liquid”; Clm. 2);
However, Takenouchi is silent regarding the chemical liquid supply nozzle supplies a
chemical liquid selected from a group consisting of ammonia and aqueous hydrogen peroxide, a citric acid solution, sulfuric acid and aqueous hydrogen peroxide, ozone water, phosphoric acid and buffered hydrofluoric acid, and a phosphoric acid solution.
Park teaches a chemical liquid supply nozzle that supplies a chemical solution (134) which consists of an organic compound (Para. [0037]). However, Park is silent regarding a chemical liquid supply nozzle that supplies a chemical liquid selected from a group consisting of ammonia and aqueous hydrogen peroxide, a citric acid solution, sulfuric acid and aqueous hydrogen peroxide, ozone water, phosphoric acid and buffered hydrofluoric acid, and a phosphoric acid solution.
Zi teaches citric acid being an example of an organic acid that is part of a cleaning solution (Para. [0106]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use citric acid, as taught by Zi, in the chemical solution (134) taught by Park since it is an example of an organic cleaning solution and thus it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the cleaning solution of Takenouchi in view of Park with that of Zi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to spray pure water to the cutting apparatus and workpiece, as taught in Takenouchi (“wherein the cutting liquid supply nozzle supplies pure water or a mixture of an organic acid and an oxidizing agent as the cutting liquid”; Clm. 2). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to spray the workpiece of Takenouchi with a chemical solution, such as citric acid, from a second nozzle in order to “remove process particles 136 from the substrate W” (Para. [0034] of Park).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER HOWELL TILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6856. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Gautham Ubale can be reached on (571) 272 9861. 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.
/PETER HOWELL TILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 4167
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
