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 .
In view of the appeal brief filed on3-27-2026 PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, “gutters extending in a processing feed direction,” of Claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, suppressing “direct collision of cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles with cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle,” of Claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “wherein the cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle is entrained by the rotating cutting blade and is conveyed along the gutters along with cutting dust to be splashed up from a rear side of the cutting blade in the processing feed direction and is scattered toward the outer circumference of the workpiece,” of Claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “wherein the cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle toward a processing point in the cutting of the workpiece takes therein the cutting dust generated at the processing point and is conveyed along the gutters to be guided toward the outer circumference of the workpiece; whereby adhesion of the cutting dust to a front surface of the workpiece is suppressed,” of Claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “wherein the tip nozzle supplies the cutting liquid such that the cutting liquid flows from the outer circumferential side of a cutting edge of the cutting blade to the processing point of the cutting edge of the cutting blade,” of Claim 10, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “wherein the orientation of the gutter forming nozzles and the tip nozzle and the control of the rate at which cutting liquid is supplied therefrom enables cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle to pass between cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles, of Claim 14, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “wherein the orientation of the gutter forming nozzles and the tip nozzle and the control of the rate at which cutting liquid is supplied therefrom enables cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle to pass between cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles,” of Claim 15, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “wherein, in operation, cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle is entrained by the rotating cutting blade and is conveyed along the gutters to be splashed up from a rear side of the cutting blade in the processing feed direction and is scattered toward the outer circumference of the workpiece,” of Claim 17, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “wherein, in operation, cutting dust generated due to the cutting of the workpiece by the cutting blade is taken in the stream of the cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle and the cutting liquid is scattered toward the outer circumference of the workpiece,” of Claim 18, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “wherein the orientation of the pair of gutter forming nozzles and the control, by the controller, of the supply of the cutting liquid from the gutter forming nozzles causes the cutting liquid from the gutter forming nozzles to contact a front surface and a back surface of the cutting blade in such a manner as to form gutters extending in a processing feed direction,” of Claim 19, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “whereby the gutters and the rotation of the cutting blade guide the cutting liquid containing cutting dust to outside of the workpiece on a downstream side in the processing feed direction,” of Claim 19, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-8, 11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re Claim 5, “wherein the orientation of the gutter forming nozzles and the tip nozzle and the control of the rate at which cutting liquid is supplied therefrom suppresses direct collision of cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles with cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle,” is indefinite. It is unclear what “suppresses direct collision” means. Is there a range of direct collision that is acceptable so long as it is less than a thetically value of direct collision. The Examiner notes that the claims are directed to the structure of the device and are not claiming the method of use. The Examiner notes that fluid is flowing out of the gutter forming nozzles and the tip nozzles and combines in the area surrounding the blade. It is unclear how any suppression can occur during this mixing. How much suppression is allowed. It is unclear what is or is not direct collision of cutting liquid. The Examiner notes that none of this is illustrated in the figures. As such, it is unclear what is being claimed. As best understood, Applicant is claiming a vertical slit performs this functional language. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 5, “wherein the orientation of the gutter forming nozzles and the tip nozzle and the control of the rate at which cutting liquid is supplied therefrom suppresses direct collision of cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles with cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle,” is indefinite. The Claims are method claims and it is unclear what step is being claimed. There is no gerund. As best understood, the step was positioning a gutter nozzle on the side of the blade and a tip nozzle on the front of the blade. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 7, “wherein the cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle is entrained by the rotating cutting blade and is conveyed along the gutters along with cutting dust to be splashed up from a rear side of the cutting blade in the processing feed direction and is scattered toward the outer circumference of the workpiece,” is indefinite. The Claims are method claims and it is unclear what step is being claimed. There is no gerund. As best understood, the step was providing cutting liquid with the claimed structure. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 8, “wherein the cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle toward a processing point in the cutting of the workpiece takes therein the cutting dust generated at the processing point and is conveyed along the gutters to be guided toward the outer circumference of the workpiece; whereby adhesion of the cutting dust to a front surface of the workpiece is suppressed,” is indefinite. The Claims are method claims and it is unclear what step is being claimed. There is no gerund. As best understood, the step was providing cutting liquid. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 11, “wherein the pair of gutter forming nozzles each comprise a plurality of jet ports formed into a slit shape extending in a vertical direction, wherein the slits are disposed at intervals in a longitudinal direction of each gutter forming nozzle wherein the spindle has an axis of rotation parallel to a horizontal y-axis; wherein the gutter forming nozzles extend in an x-direction, the x-direction being orthogonal to the y-axis;” is indefinite. As best understood the scope of the cited clause is already in Claim
In re Claim 13, “wherein the gutter forming nozzles supply the cutting liquid from the jet ports to the front surface and the back surface of a lower end of a cutting edge of the cutting blade,” is indefinite. As best understood, the scope of Claim 13 is already in Claim 1. It is unclear what additional structural limitations are being claimed. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 14, “wherein the orientation of the gutter forming nozzles and the tip nozzle and the control of the rate at which cutting liquid is supplied therefrom enables cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle to pass between cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles,” is indefinite. Applicant is claiming the use of the device and not further limiting the claim by structural limitations. It is unclear what additional structural limitation is being claimed as the structure of Claim 1 appears to provide all the structure necessary to read on the claim. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 15, “wherein the orientation of the gutter forming nozzles and the tip nozzle and the control of the rate at which cutting liquid is supplied therefrom enables cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle to pass between cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles,” is indefinite. Applicant is claiming the use of the device and not further limiting the claim by structural limitations. It is unclear what additional structural limitation is being claimed as the structure of Claim 3 appears to provide all the structure necessary to read on the claim. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 17, “wherein, in operation, cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle is entrained by the rotating cutting blade and is conveyed along the gutters to be splashed up from a rear side of the cutting blade in the processing feed direction and is scattered toward the outer circumference of the workpiece,” is indefinite. Applicant is claiming the use of the device and not further limiting the claim by structural limitations. It is unclear what additional structural limitation is being claimed as the structure of Claim 1 appears to provide all the structure necessary to read on the claim. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 18, “wherein, in operation, cutting dust generated due to the cutting of the workpiece by the cutting blade is taken in the stream of the cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle and the cutting liquid is scattered toward the outer circumference of the workpiece,” is indefinite. Applicant is claiming the use of the device and not further limiting the claim by structural limitations. It is unclear what additional structural limitation is being claimed as the structure of Claims 1/17 appears to provide all the structure necessary to read on the claim. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 19, “wherein the orientation of the pair of gutter forming nozzles and the control, by the controller, of the supply of the cutting liquid from the gutter forming nozzles causes the cutting liquid from the gutter forming nozzles to contact a front surface and a back surface of the cutting blade in such a manner as to form gutters extending in a processing feed direction” in view of “wherein the forwardmost of the jet ports in the processing feed direction are positioned so as not to be positioned forward of a forward edge of the cutting blade,” is indefinite. How can the nozzles supply cutting liquid directed toward the a front surface of the blade when they are also behind the blade. Applicant’s disclosure only orients the nozzles as illustrated in Figs. 4 or 7, which if behind the blade would not direct fluid to the front of the blade. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 9, 10, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2943212 B2 in view of JP H05206266 A, and US 20160218023 to Takenouchi, with evidence from JP H03230546 A.
At the outset the Examiner points out that Claim 1, and the claims that depend from it, are apparatus claims directed to the structure of the cutting apparatus and not the method of use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).
In re Claim 1, JP 2943212 B2 teaches a cutting apparatus (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a cutting unit having a spindle on which a cutting blade that cuts the workpiece held (see Fig. 1-7, blade #4 is rotated about a spindle) and rotated, cutting dust being generated when the cutting blade cuts the workpiece (see Fig. 6, illustrating the cutting dust being generated; see also Fig. Figs, 1 and 7, contaminated cutting water#14); and
a cutting liquid supply unit that supplies a cutting liquid to the cutting blade (see Fig. 1, #13/12/11), wherein the cutting liquid supply unit includes a pair of gutter forming nozzles (see Figs. 1 and 8, #9a/9b/8/8) that are disposed to face each other in such a manner as to sandwich the cutting blade (see Fig. 8), wherein orientation of the pair of gutter forming nozzles of the supply of the cutting liquid from the gutter forming nozzles causes the cutting liquid form the gutter forming nozzles to be directed toward a front surface and a back surface of the cutting blade (see Fig. 8, showing the supply of liquid directed toward the front surface – the “right” side in Fig. 8 and the rear surface – the “left” side in Fig. 8) in such a manner as to form gutter extending in a processing feed direction (JP 2943212 B2 states: “The blade cooling nozzle (8) forms a plurality of, for example, three slits (10) in conduits (9a) and (9b) extending from the flange cover (5) to both lower sides of the blade (4) facing the semiconductor wafer (2). The cooling and cutting water (8a) radiated in a fan shape from the slit (10) to the blade blade portion cools the blade blade portion during dicing and smoothes the cutting. (11)” - the Examiner notes that the structure of Itatani is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim);
a tip nozzle, (see Figs. 1-2, #243A/4B, #72), the orientation of the tip nozzle and the cutting liquid supplied there from causing cutting liquid to be supplied on an upstream side in the processing feed direction from an outer circumferent side of the cutting blade (see Figs. 1 and 6, #22a) toward a processing point at which the cutting blade cuts into the workpiece (see Fig. 6, cutting point “a”);
wherein the spindle has an axis of rotation parallel to a Y-axis (see Fig.6, rotating arrow of the blade #4 is centered around the axis of rotation9);
wherein the gutter forming nozzles extend in an x-direction, the x-direction being orthogonal to the y-axis (see Fig. 1, #9a/9b, which are unlabeled extend in an “x” direction in view of Applicant’s Fig. 6);
wherein the pair of gutter forming nozzles each comprise a plurality of jet ports (see Figs. 1, 8, 7, slits #10; the slits are “jet ports” in view of Applicant’s disclosure),
wherein the jet ports are disposed at intervals in a longitudinal direction of each gutter forming nozzle (see Figs. 1 and 7, the slits are disposed at internal in the longitudinal direction of the gutter forming nozzles), and the forwardmost of the jet ports in the processing feed direction are positioned so as not to be positioned forward of a forward edge of the cutting blade (see Fig. 1, showing slits #10 not extending beyond the outer permitter of blade #4); wherein each of the plurality of jet ports are formed into a slit shape extending in a vertical direction (see Fig. 1, in view of Fig. 10 with evidence from JP H03230546 A, Fig. 3a, slit #3a).
JP 2943212 B2 is silent as to:
a holding table that holds a workpiece;
a controller; and
wherein the jet ports include at least one jet port positioned rearwardly in the processing feed direction rearward of a circumference of the cutting blade.
However, JP H05206266 A teaches that it is known in the art of dicing with fluid to provide a table that holds a workpiece (see JP H05206266 A, Fig. 1B/C, table #10 holding wafer #2) and a control unit (see JP H05206266 A, Fig. 6, “FIG. 6 shows the entire device in which the wafer dicing device is incorporated together with a control unit, an operating unit, a display, etc., and the portion shown by the arrow (1) is the portion shown in FIG. 1 of the wafer dicing device.”). In the same field of invention, dicing with fluid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a table to hold the workpiece and a control unit to control the blade and fluid operations at taught by JP H05206266 A. Doing so provides a surface for the workpiece to be cut as well as allows the user to control the machine automatically with programs and processes, thus making the machine more efficient.
Additionally, Takenouchi wherein the jet ports include at least one jet port positioned rearwardly in the processing feed direction rearward of a circumference of the cutting blade (see Takenouchi, Fig. 8, illustrating one #220 opening rearwardly of the rear edge of the blade).
In the same field of invention, dicing using fluid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to extend the nozzles past the rear end of the blade in JP 2943212 B2, as taught by Takenouchi. Doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143, I, A).
The examiner notes that there are only two orientations for last nozzle, either it is beyond the circumference of the rear portion of the blade or it is before the circumference of the rear portion of the blade. Either is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. One set-up (the nozzle set ending beyond the circumference of the blade) ensures more water is used and therefore increases the possibility that all the debris is removed. The other set-up (less nozzles with the last nozzle ending before the rear of the blade circumference) provides less nozzles which use less water, thereby reducing the amount of contaminated water. In other words, these are engineering tradeoffs that one on ordinary skill in the art understands and would choose depending design of the machine and the output required.
In re Claim 9, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the workpiece is a semiconductor wafer (see JP 2943212 B2, “Summary of the invention”: the present invention relates to a method of dicing a semiconductor wafer with a blade).
In re Claim 10, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the tip nozzle supplies the cutting liquid such that the cutting liquid flows from the outer circumferential side of a cutting edge of the cutting blade to the processing point of the cutting edge of the cutting blade (see JP 2943212 B2, Fig. 1, #22a; see also Fig. 6, #22a and “a”).
Modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 1, teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Here, the prior art supplies the fluid in the same manner as Applicant’s disclosure and has the nozzles in the same position. As such, the structure of the prior art performs in the same manner as Applicant’s disclosure. Accordingly, the prior art reads on the claims. The Examiner notes that this is an apparatus claim.
In re Claim 14, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the orientation of the gutter forming nozzles and the tip nozzle and the control of the rate at which cutting liquid is supplied therefrom enables cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle to pass between cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles (see JP 2943212 B2, Fig. 1, #10/8/22a; see also Fig. 6, #22a and Fig. 8, #8/8 as well as Fig. 9 a/b, #14).
Here, the prior art supplies the fluid in the same manner as Applicant’s disclosure and has the nozzles in the same position. As such, the structure of the prior art performs in the same manner as Applicant’s disclosure. Accordingly, the prior art reads on the claims. The Examiner notes that this is an apparatus claim.
In re Claim 17, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein, in operation, cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle is entrained by the rotating cutting blade (see JP 2943212 B2, Fig. 6, arrows) and is conveyed along the gutters to be splashed up from a rear side of the cutting blade in the processing feed direction (see JP 2943212 B2, Fig. 6, arrows) and is scattered toward the outer circumference of the workpiece (see JP 2943212 B2, Fig. 6, arrows, and Fig. 9 #14).
Here, the prior art supplies the fluid in the same flow rate as Applicant’s disclosure and has the nozzles in the same position. As such, the structure of the prior art performs in the same manner as Applicant’s disclosure. Accordingly, the prior art reads on the claims.
In re Claim 18, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein, in operation, cutting dust generated due to the cutting of the workpiece by the cutting blade is taken in the stream of the cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle and the cutting liquid is scattered toward the outer circumference of the workpiece (see JP 2943212 B2, Fig. 6, arrows, and Fig. 9 #14).
Claims 2, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2943212 B2 in view of JP H05206266 A, and US 20160218023 to Takenouchi, with evidence from JP H03230546 A, and further in view of 20120060737 A, JP 09320994 A, and US 4,569,326 to Tanizaki.
In re Claim 2, the “angle of the cutting liquid” was interpreted and “the angle 274 formed by the line segment 272” in view of Applicant’s Fig. 4. See Applicant’s Para. 0038. As best understood, this angle is the angle between the center of the fluid exiting the slit and the horizontal plane between the centerline of the gutter forming nozzles #27.
In re Claim 2, JP 2943212 B2 teaches the cooling water radiated in a fan shape (see JP 2943212 B2, which states: “The cooling and cutting water (8a) radiated in a fan shape from the slit (10) to the blade blade portion cools the blade blade portion during dicing and smoothes the cutting. (11)”)
Modified JP 2943212 B2 does not teach wherein an angle of the cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles is equal to or larger than 45 degrees but is equal to or smaller than 85 degrees in a downward direction with respect to a horizontal direction.
However, KR 20120060737 A teaches that it is known in the art wherein an angle of the cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles is oriented in a downward direction with respect to a horizontal direction (see annotated Fig. 5, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, JP 09320994 A teaches an angle of the cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles is oriented in a downward direction with respect to a horizontal direction (see Fig. 3, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
198
240
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In addition, Takenouchi teaches an angle of the cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles is oriented in a downward direction with respect to a horizontal direction (see Fig. 3A, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
380
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further Tanizaki teaches an angle of the cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles is oriented in a downward direction with respect to a horizontal direction (see Fig. 3A, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
234
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s disclosure provides no evidence of criticality of the claimed range 40 degree range. No discussion of what occurs an 86 degrees or 44 degrees is found and how the particular range improves over ranges between 86-90 degrees and 44-0 degrees.
Further, as illustrated above, it is widely known in the art to angle the direction of the nozzle flow (see each of the figures above). One of ordinary skill in the art, understands that an angle, in this case, is made up of a downward vertical component and a horizontal component. One of ordinary skill in the art understands the downward vertical component washes the blade and directs debris “downward” and the horizontal component focuses the flow directly on the blade to remove the debris. Adjusting these components of a downward angle changes the force on each of these functions. Optimizing these functions would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art in order to balance dislodging the debris from the blade and directing the debris downward and away from the blade.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide the fluid at an angle of between 45-85 degrees, in view of the prior art. Doing so balances the dual function of dislodging the debris from the blade and directing the debris downward and away from the blade.
In re Claim 11, as best understood, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 1, teaches
wherein the y-axis is horizontal (the horizontal axis in JP 2943212 B2 is considered the y-axis);
Modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 1, does not teach:
wherein the jet ports of each of the gutter forming nozzles are formed in such a manner that an angle formed by a line segment that links a center of the gutter forming nozzle and a center of each jet port in a circumferential direction of the gutter forming nozzle and a line segment that extends in the horizontal direction from the center of the gutter forming nozzle to the cutting blade is at least 45 degrees but at most 85 degrees.
Modified JP 2943212 B2 teaches the cooling water radiated in a fan shape (see JP 2943212 B2, which states: “The cooling and cutting water (8a) radiated in a fan shape from the slit (10) to the blade blade portion cools the blade blade portion during dicing and smoothes the cutting. (11)”)
Modified JP 2943212 B2 does not teach an angle formed by a line segment that links a center of the gutter forming nozzle and a center of each jet port in a circumferential direction of the gutter forming nozzle and a line segment that extends in the horizontal direction from the center of the gutter forming nozzle to the cutting blade is at least 45 degrees but at most 85 degrees.
However, KR 20120060737 A teaches that it is known in the art wherein an angle of the cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles is oriented in a downward direction with respect to a horizontal direction (see annotated Fig. 5, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, JP 09320994 A teaches an angle of the cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles is oriented in a downward direction with respect to a horizontal direction (see Fig. 3, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
198
240
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In addition, Takenouchi teaches an angle of the cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles is oriented in a downward direction with respect to a horizontal direction (see Fig. 3A, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
380
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further, Tanizaki teaches an angle of the cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles is oriented in a downward direction with respect to a horizontal direction (see Fig. 3A, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
234
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s disclosure provides no evidence of criticality of the claimed range 40 degree range. No discussion of what occurs an 86 degrees or 44 degrees is found and how the particular range improves over ranges between 86-90 degrees and 44-0 degrees.
Further, as illustrated above, it is widely known in the art to angle the direction of the nozzle flow (see each of the figures above). One of ordinary skill in the art, understands that an angle, in this case, is made up of a downward vertical component and a horizontal component. One of ordinary skill in the art understands the downward vertical component washes the blade and directs debris “downward” and the horizontal component focuses the flow directly on the blade to remove the debris. Adjusting these components of a downward angle changes the force by each of these functions. Optimizing these functions would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art in order to balance dislodging the debris from the blade and directing the debris downward and away from the blade.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide the fluid at an angle of between 45-85 degrees, in view of the prior art. Doing so balances the dual function of dislodging the debris from the blade and directing the debris downward and away from the blade.
In re Claim 13, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 11, teaches wherein the gutter forming nozzles supply the cutting liquid from the jet ports to the front surface and the back surface of a lower end of a cutting edge of the cutting blade (JP 2943212 B2, Fig. 8).
Here, the prior art supplies the fluid in the same flow rate as Applicant’s disclosure and has the nozzles in the same position. As such, the structure of the prior art performs in the same manner as Applicant’s disclosure. Accordingly, the prior art reads on the claims.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2943212 B2 in view of JP H05206266 A, and US 20160218023 to Takenouchi, with evidence from JP H03230546 A, and further in view of SG 10201904035Y A.
In re Claim 3, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 1, does teaches wherein the controller controls a flow rate of the cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles so that it is equal to or higher than 2.0 L/min but is equal to or lower than 3.0 L/min. Takenouchi ‘023 teaches that it is known to provide cutting water to a cutting blade at a rate of 200cc/minute (2000cc/minute = 2L/min). See Takenouchi Para. 0049. In the same field of invention, dicing with cutting fluid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to supply fluid at the rate taught by the prior art (Takenouchi). Doing so is the use of a known flow rate to achieve the same results of reducing the heat of the blade and removing the debris.
Modified JP 293212 does not explicitly state that the controller controls the flow of fluid. However, SG 10201904035Y A teaches that it is known in the art of dicing to have the controller control the flow of fluid (SG 10201904035Y A states: The flow rate control unit 64 is connected to the controller 80, and the controller 80 controls operation of the flow rate control unit 64. More specifically, the controller 80 includes a flow rate control section 82 connected to the flow rate control unit 64. The flow rate control section 82 controls operation of the flow rate control unit 64 in such a way that liquid is supplied at a predetermined flow rate from the liquid supplying source 72 to the pump 62. Moreover, the flow rate control unit 64 can control whether or not liquid is supplied from the liquid supplying source 72 to the pump 62.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to control the flow of fluid by the controller by way of a flow rate control unit, as taught by SG 10201904035Y A. Doing so automates the machine and allows the user to adjust the rate by the controller as opposed to a manual adjustment.
In re Claim 15, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 3, teaches wherein the orientation of the gutter forming nozzles and the tip nozzle and the control of the rate at which cutting liquid is supplied therefrom enables cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle to pass between cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles (see modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 3, teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; see also JP 2943212 B2, Fig. 6, #221 and Fig.8, #8/8).
Here, the prior art supplies the fluid in the same flow rate as Applicant’s disclosure and has the nozzles in the same position. As such, the structure of the prior art performs in the same manner as Applicant’s disclosure. Accordingly, the prior art reads on the claims.
Here, the prior art supplies the fluid in the same flow rate as Applicant’s disclosure and has the nozzles in the same position. As such, the structure of the prior art performs in the same manner as Applicant’s disclosure. Accordingly, the prior art reads on the claims.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2943212 B2 in view of JP H05206266 A, US 20160218023 to Takenouchi, with evidence from JP H03230546 A, and SG 10201904035Y A, and further in view of JP 2002319553 A.
In re Claim 16, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 3, does not teach wherein the controller controls the flow rate of the cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle is at least 0.8 L/min but less than or equal to 1.5 L/min.
However, JP 2002319553 A teaches that it is known to provide cutting liquid at from a “side nozzle at 0.5 or 0.7 or 1.2 l/min (see JP 2002319553 A, Figs. 7/8; see also translation which states : The numerical values shown on the horizontal axis in FIGS. 7 and 8 represent the amount of cutting water supplied during cutting. For example, 0.5 + 0.5 means that the side nozzle flow rate and the shower nozzle flow rate are 0, respectively. .5 L / min). The Examiner ntoes that an example of 1.2 l/min is at least 0.8 L/min but less than or equal to 1.5 L/min.
In the same field of invention, cutting liquid used with circular saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the pressure taught by JP 2002319553 A with the controller of modified JP 2002319553 A. Doing so is the use of a known flow rate to achieve the same results of reducing the wear of the blade (see JP 2002319553 A, which states: As shown in FIG. 7, in the case of the side nozzle 26 according to the present embodiment, the blade wear amount is reduced as a whole as compared with the conventional side nozzle. In particular, the cutting water supply volume of the side nozzle and the shower nozzle is 1.2)
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2943212 B2 in view of JP H05206266 A, KR 20120060737 A, JP 09320994 A,US 20160218023 to Takenouchi, and US 4,569,326 to Tanizaki.
In re Claim 4, JP 2943212 B2 teaches a cutting method for cutting a workpiece (see Figs. 1-4B), the cutting method comprising:
a holding step of holding the workpiece on (see Fig. 1, #22, and Para. 0028);
a gutter forming step of forming gutters extending in a processing feed direction (see Figs. 1, 6, and 8, each nozzle #8/#8 forms a flow of fluid which is considered a “gutter”), by supplying a cutting liquid from gutter forming nozzles to a front surface and a back surface of a rotating cutting blade (see arrows in Fig. 6 in view of Fig. 8 and Fig. 1), the gutter forming nozzles being disposed to face each other in such a manner as to sandwich the cutting blade (see Fig. 8, #8/#8); and
a cutting step of, after the gutter forming step is executed, cutting the workpiece by the cutting blade while supplying the cutting liquid from a tip nozzle such that the cutting liquid flows from an outer circumferential side of the cutting blade toward the cutting blade on an upstream side in the processing feed direction (see Fig. 6, “cutting point” “a” cuts the workpieces while the cutting liquid is supplied from a tip nozzle #22/22a), and guiding the cutting liquid including cutting dust by the gutters to outside of the workpiece on a downstream side in the processing feed direction (see arrows in Fig. 4; see also Figs. 1 and 7-8).
JP 2943212 B2 is silent as to:
a holding table that holds a workpiece;
wherein the gutter forming step comprises supplying the cutting liquid from the gutter forming nozzles at an angle that is maintained within a range of equal to or larger than 45 degrees and equal to or smaller than 85 degrees in a downward direction with respect to a horizontal direction.
However, JP H05206266 A teaches that it is known in the art of dicing with fluid to provide a table that holds a workpiece (see JP H05206266 A, Fig. 1B/C, table #10 holding wafer #2). In the same field of invention, dicing with fluid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a table to hold the workpiece as taught by JP H05206266 A. Doing so provides a surface for the workpiece to be cut.
Further, KR 20120060737 A teaches that it is known in the art wherein an angle of the cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles is oriented in a downward direction with respect to a horizontal direction (see annotated Fig. 5, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, JP 09320994 A teaches an angle of the cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles is oriented in a downward direction with respect to a horizontal direction (see Fig. 3, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
198
240
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In addition, Takenouchi teaches an angle of the cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles is oriented in a downward direction with respect to a horizontal direction (see Fig. 3A, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
380
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further Tanizaki teaches an angle of the cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles is oriented in a downward direction with respect to a horizontal direction (see Fig. 3A, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
234
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s disclosure provides no evidence of criticality of the claimed range 40 degree range. No discussion of what occurs an 86 degrees or 44 degrees is found and how the particular range improves over ranges between 86-90 degrees and 44-0 degrees.
Further, as illustrated above, it is widely known in the art to angle the direction of the nozzle flow (see each of the figures above). One of ordinary skill in the art, understands that an angle, in this case, is made up of a downward vertical component and a horizontal component. One of ordinary skill in the art understands the downward vertical component washes the blade and directs debris “downward” and the horizontal component focuses the flow directly on the blade to remove the debris. Adjusting these components of a downward angle changes the force on each of these functions. Optimizing these functions would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art in order to balance dislodging the debris from the blade and directing the debris downward and away from the blade.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide the fluid at an angle of between 45-85 degrees, in view of the prior art. Doing so balances the dual function of dislodging the debris from the blade and directing the debris downward and away from the blade.
In re Claim 5, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 4, teaches a structure where, during operation the orientation of the gutter forming nozzles and the tip nozzle and the control of the rate at which cutting liquid is supplied therefrom suppresses direct collision of cutting liquid supplied from the gutter forming nozzles with cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle (the claim was interpreted as best understood)
In re Claim 6, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 4, teaches wherein the workpiece is a semiconductor wafer (see JP 2943212 B2, abstract)
In re Claim 7, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 4, teaches a structure wherein the cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle is entrained by the rotating cutting blade and is conveyed along the gutters along with cutting dust to be splashed up from a rear side of the cutting blade in the processing feed direction and is scattered toward the outer circumference of the workpiece (see arrows in JP 2943212 B2, Fig. 6; see also Figs. 7-8).
In re Claim 8, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 4, teaches structure wherein the cutting liquid supplied from the tip nozzle toward a processing point in the cutting of the workpiece takes therein the cutting dust generated at the processing point and is conveyed along the gutters to be guided toward the outer circumference of the workpiece; whereby adhesion of the cutting dust to a front surface of the workpiece is suppressed (see arrows and #22/22a in JP 2943212 B2, Fig. 6).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2943212 B2 in view of JP H05206266 A.
At the outset the Examiner points out that Claim 1, and the claims that depend from it, are apparatus claims directed to the structure of the cutting apparatus and not the method of use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).
In re Claim 19, JP 2943212 B2 teaches a cutting apparatus (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a workpiece (see Fig. 1, #2);
a cutting unit having a spindle on which a cutting blade that cuts the workpiece (see Fig. 1, blade #4), cutting dust being generated when the cutting blade cuts the workpiece (see Fig. 6); and
a cutting liquid supply unit that supplies a cutting liquid to the cutting blade (see Fig. 8, #9a/9b), wherein the cutting liquid supply unit includes:
a pair of gutter forming nozzles that are disposed to face each other in such a manner as to sandwich the cutting blade (see Figs. and 8, #10/8/10/8), wherein the orientation of the pair of gutter forming nozzles and the supply of the cutting liquid from the gutter forming nozzles causes the cutting liquid from the gutter forming nozzles to contact a front surface and a back surface of the cutting blade in such a manner as to form gutters extending in a processing feed direction (see Fig. 8, #8/#8), and
a tip nozzle (see Figs. 1 and 6, #22/22a), the orientation of the tip nozzle and cutting liquid supplied therefrom causing cutting liquid to be supplied on an upstream side in the processing feed direction from an outer circumferential side of the cutting blade toward a processing point of the cutting blade (see Fig. 6, “a”), the processing point being a point at which the cutting blade cuts into the workpiece (see Fig. 6),
whereby the gutters and the rotation of the cutting blade guide the cutting liquid containing cutting dust to outside of the workpiece on a downstream side in the processing feed direction (the arrows in Fig. 6);
wherein the pair of gutter forming nozzles each comprise a plurality of jet ports (see Fig. 1, #10/10/10), wherein the jet ports are disposed at intervals in a longitudinal direction of each gutter forming nozzle (see Fig. 1, each of #10 are at interval in a longitudinal direction of the gutter forming nozzle)
wherein the forwardmost of the jet ports in the processing feed direction are positioned so as not to be positioned forward of a forward edge of the cutting blade (see Fig. 1, the forward #10 is forward of the cutting edge of the blade),
JP 2943212 B2 does not teach: a table and a controller.
However, JP H05206266 A teaches that it is known in the art of dicing with fluid to provide a table that holds a workpiece (see JP H05206266 A, Fig. 1B/C, table #10 holding wafer #2) and a control unit (see JP H05206266 A, Fig. 6, “FIG. 6 shows the entire device in which the wafer dicing device is incorporated together with a control unit, an operating unit, a display, etc., and the portion shown by the arrow (1) is the portion shown in FIG. 1 of the wafer dicing device.”). In the same field of invention, dicing with fluid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a table to hold the workpiece and a control unit to control the blade and fluid operations at taught by JP H05206266 A. Doing so provides a surface for the workpiece to be cut as well as allows the user to control the machine automatically with programs and processes, thus making the machine more efficient.
In re Claim 20, modified JP 2943212 B2, in re Claim 19, teaches wherein the workpiece is a semiconductor wafer (see JP 2943212 B2, abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights