Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-8 were previously pending. Claim 8 was withdrawn. Claims 1-3 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizuka (JP 7408474 B2) in view of Hinohara et al. (US 20190160708 A1) hereinafter Hinohara.
Regarding claim 1, Lizuka teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a jig for use in manufacturing a wafer from an ingot and for being delivered while being integrated with the ingot,
PNG
media_image1.png
68
902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising: a base (conveyance tray 4) having an outer circumferential body (cubical body) and a central body (transfer means 22) surrounded by the outer circumferential body, the central body being recessed from the outer circumferential body and having a holding surface (22a, 22b) and a lower surface (flat bottom surface of 4) opposite the holding surface,
PNG
media_image2.png
78
916
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and an information recording member (identification mark 34) fixed to the outer circumferential body for recording individual information of the ingot identifiably therein. In jig of Lizuka ingot is held by suction and not adhesive layer.
PNG
media_image3.png
622
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hinohara teaches a jig (4) for use in manufacturing a wafer from an ingot (50). Hinohara in par. 0025 teaches an adhesive or suction can be used to fix the ingot on the jig.
Therefore, because these two ingot fixing means were art-recognized equivalents before effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute adhesive for suction.
Regarding claim 2, Lizuka teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the central body has a predetermined depth (depth of 22a, 22b) for accommodating a bottom portion of the ingot therein.
PNG
media_image4.png
196
914
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lizuka teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the information recording member includes a plate capable of indicating on a surface thereof information represented by one or more combined of colors, symbols, numerals, letters, figures, patterns, pictures, and two-dimensional codes.
PNG
media_image5.png
66
882
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizuka and Hinohara as applied to rejection of claims 1-2 above and further in view of Mitarai (US 20040016504 A1).
Regarding claim 3, combined device of Lizuka and Hinohara does not teach the claimed ultraviolet ray transmission.
Mitarai teaches a ring-shaped jig 1 with a holding mechanism includes an adhesive layer disposed on the holding surface and made of an ultraviolet-curable resin having bonding power that is lowered when irradiated with ultraviolet rays (5), and the ingot (3a) is held on the holding surface with the adhesive layer interposed therebetween before the adhesive layer is irradiated with ultraviolet rays (par. 88).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ultraviolet-curable resin for adhesive layer for a “high adhesion strength” (see par. 0090).
Regarding claim 4, Iwakata teaches (Fig. 6 above) the adhesive layer (7) disposed on the holding surface has a thickness smaller than the predetermined depth of the recess (Fig. 6 shows thickness of 7 is less than thickness/depth of 6).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizuka and Hinohara as applied to rejection of claim 1 above and further in view of Hanajima (US 20210004553 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7, combined jig of Lizuka and Hinohara does not teach the claimed IC tag.
Hanajima teaches the information recording member includes a plate capable of indicating on a surface thereof information represented by one or more combined of colors, symbols, numerals, letters, figures, patterns, pictures, and two-dimensional codes; wherein the information recording member includes an integrated circuit tag for recording individual information that is read or written via wireless communication (see par. 0010, 0012, 0069, 0071 and 0079).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use RFID as information recording member on the jig of Lizuka. Doing so would make the jig capable of process each ingot based on recorded information on the RFID tag.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new primary reference and combination of the references being used in the current rejection as necessitate by amendments.
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 MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
