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 .
Status
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application papers filed on 12 December 2023.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12 December 2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language includes phrase that can be implied, see line 1: “The present invention discloses…” Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure-
(A) The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
(B) The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 8 is/are objected to because of the following informality(ies):
(A) At line 5: “according to any of claim 1” is suggested to be: according to
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/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.
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 2:
Claim(s) 2 recite(s): roughly parallel at line 3. The term “roughly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting parallel or not parallel to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 219054541 to Yang et al. (hereinafter “YANG”) in view of CN 219445628 to Sun et al. (hereinafter “SUN”).
(A) Regarding Claim 1:
YANG teaches:
A cutting device, comprising:
a main shaft system (7), wherein the main shaft system comprises a set of rollers (7-10, 7-11) and a set of bearing box assemblies (i.e. left and right bearing housing) for supporting the set of rollers (Figs. 1-3);
a cutting head, wherein the cutting head is provided with a frame main body and at least four shaft holes (i.e. through holes, I-V) formed in the frame main body (Figs. 1-3);
at least four eccentric shaft sleeves, wherein each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves is capable of being mounted in one of the at least four shaft holes in an axial sliding manner (Figs. 1-3), and one of bearing boxes in the set of bearing box assemblies is disposed in each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves (Figs. 1-3);
wherein the eccentric shaft sleeves are inserted into the corresponding shaft holes (Figs. 1-3), and the support arms limit the eccentric shaft sleeves to different angles.
However, the difference between YANG and the claimed invention is that YANG does not explicitly teach a set of locking screw assemblies used for locking axial positions of the rollers and wherein one support arm is disposed on each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves; at least four sets of limiting mechanisms are disposed on the frame main body; each set of limiting mechanisms is combined with one of the at least four shaft holes; the each set of limiting mechanisms comprises at least two limiting clamping seats and fasteners; the support arms are capable of forming a limiting fit with the limiting clamping seats; the fasteners are used for fastening the support arms to the limiting clamping seats.
SUN teaches:
a set of locking screw assemblies used for locking axial positions of the rollers (Figs. 1-5, i.e. fixing block can be connected to the outer fixing piece by a screw) and wherein one support arm (9) is disposed on each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves; at least four sets of limiting mechanisms (i.e. fixing ring 6 with connection piece 7 and fixing piece 10 with locating block 11) are disposed on the frame main body; each set of limiting mechanisms is combined with one of the at least four shaft holes (Figs. 1-5); the each set of limiting mechanisms comprises at least two limiting clamping seats and fasteners (Figs. 1-5); the support arms are capable of forming a limiting fit with the limiting clamping seats; the fasteners are used for fastening the support arms to the limiting clamping seats (i.e. the mounting sleeve and the bearing box are clamped form the inner and outer sides of the mounting side wall of the supporting frame);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting device by having the double-side locating structure with fixing ring and locating piece, as taught by SUN, in order to clamp the rollers and thereby achieve the predictable result of locating the rollers (Figs. 2 and 5, Claim 8, English translation).
(B) Regarding Claim 2:
Modified YANG further teaches:
each set of limiting mechanisms further comprises at least one guide rod, a guide hole cooperating with the guide rod is formed in the support arm (SUN Figs. 2 and 5), and the guide rod is parallel or roughly parallel to a centerline of the shaft hole (SUN Fig. 1).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
Merely stating the result of the limitations in the claim does not add to the patentability or substance of the claim (MPEP 2111.04). The claim recites the result(s) of the limitations is/are “so that the eccentric shaft sleeve integrated with the support arm does not rotate during axial movement.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device then the prior art device necessarily achieves the results as claimed. In this case, the guide rod of the cited art meets the structural limitations of the claimed guide rod.
(C) Regarding Claim 3:
Modified YANG further teaches:
a guide mounting hole for mounting the guide rod is formed in each of the at least two limiting clamping seats, and the guide rod is capable of being mounted on another limiting clamping seat after being disassembled from one of the at least two limiting clamping seats; or the guide mounting hole is directly formed in the frame main body (YANG Figs. 1-3 and SUN Figs. 2-5).
(D) Regarding Claim 4:
Modified YANG further teaches:
each set of limiting mechanisms comprises at least three limiting clamping seats and fasteners, the at least three limiting clamping seats are located on a same plane (i.e. YANG, Figs. 1-3, three bearing housings for three rollers; i.e. SUN Figs. 2 and 5 for clamping seat and fasteners); and a distance from each of the at least three limiting clamping seats to a centerline of the corresponding shaft hole is the same (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1-2), and a distance between any two adjacent limiting clamping seats of the at least three limiting clamping seats is the same as a distance between the other two adjacent limiting clamping seats (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1-2).
(E) Regarding Claim 5:
Modified YANG further teaches:
the support arm is disposed on the eccentric shaft sleeve by fastened connection or welding, fixed connection (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1-2).
(F) Regarding Claim 6:
Modified YANG further teaches:
the cutting device comprises six eccentric shaft sleeves, the cutting head is provided with six shaft holes, the main shaft system comprises three rollers and three bearing box assemblies for supporting the three rollers, and three locking screw assemblies for locking axial positions of the rollers; and six sets of limiting mechanisms are disposed on the frame main body (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1-2).
(G) Regarding Claim 8:
Modified YANG further teaches:
A diamond wire multi-wire cutting machine, comprising a machine frame, and a cutting device, a feeding system, a wire guide system, a tension system, a wire arrangement system and a wire take-up and pay-off system which are disposed on the machine frame, as well as a mortar bucket located below the machine frame, wherein the cutting device is the cutting device according to any of claim 1 (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1), and is mounted at a front end of the machine frame the feeding system is mounted above the cutting device, the wire take-up and pay-off system consists of two wire take-up and pay-off components arranged below a left side and a right side of the cutting device (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1), the wire guide system consists of two wire guide components symmetrically arranged below the left side and the right side of the cutting device (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1), the tension system consists of two tension components symmetrically arranged below the left side and the right side of the cutting device (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1), and the wire arrangement system consists of two wire arrangement components arranged below the left side and the right side of the cutting device (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified YANG, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 113276295 to Hasegawa et al. (hereinafter “HASEGAWA”).
(A) Regarding Claim 7:
Modified YANG teaches:
The cutting device (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1-5).
However, the difference between modified YANG and the claimed invention is that modified YANG does not explicitly teach at least two sliding grooves are formed in each of the at least four shaft holes, one sliding key is in fastened connection or fixed connection to each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves or each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves is provided with one sliding tooth integrated with the eccentric shaft sleeve, and the sliding key or the sliding tooth is capable of cooperating with each of the at least two sliding grooves; and when the sliding key or the sliding tooth is combined with each of the at least two sliding grooves, a radial angle of the eccentric shaft sleeve is limited to a different position, and the eccentric shaft sleeve does not rotate when moving axially.
HASEGAWA teaches:
at least two sliding grooves are formed in each of the shaft holes (7g, 7h, 46b, 47b Fig. 1), one sliding key is in fastened connection or fixed connection to each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves or each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves is provided with one sliding tooth integrated with the eccentric shaft sleeve, and the sliding key or the sliding tooth is capable of cooperating with each of the at least two sliding grooves (7g, 7h, 46b, 47b Fig. 1).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
Merely stating the result of the limitations in the claim does not add to the patentability or substance of the claim (MPEP 2111.04). The claim recites the result(s) of the limitations is/are “when the sliding key or the sliding tooth is combined with each of the at least two sliding grooves, a radial angle of the eccentric shaft sleeve is limited to a different position, and the eccentric shaft sleeve does not rotate when moving axially.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device then the prior art device necessarily achieves the results as claimed. In this case, the sliding key or tooth and sliding groove of the cited art meets the structural limitations of the claimed the sliding key or tooth and sliding groove.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft hole of YANG to include the sliding groove and sliding key, as taught by HASEGAWA, in order to provide a fixing in the sliding shaft hole and thereby achieve the predictable result of fixing in the shaft hole (see claims 2-3 and 5, English translation).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified YANG, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of CN 107093651 to YANG et al. (hereinafter “YANG’651”).
(A) Regarding Claim 9:
Modified YANG teaches:
The multi-wire cutting machine (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1-5).
However, the difference between modified YANG and the claimed invention is that modified YANG does not explicitly teach a silicon ingot slicing production line with claimed features.
YANG’651 teaches:
A silicon ingot slicing production line, comprising: a track, wherein the track (103, Fig. 2) is arranged linearly, a row of diamond wire multi-wire cutting machines (10, Fig. 1) is arranged on each of two sides of the track, and each row comprises at least three diamond wire multi-wire cutting machines according to claim 8 (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Fig. 1); a roller conveyor (103), wherein the roller conveyor is arranged on one side of the track, and used for conveying workpieces with adhesive plates; a charging machine (20), wherein the charging machine cooperates with the roller conveyor, and is used for rolling over the workpieces with adhesive plates delivered by the roller conveyor, so that the adhesive plates of the workpieces with adhesive plates face upwards; a temporary storage table (i.e. “first storage transfer mechanism” of English translation), wherein the temporary storage table is arranged on one side of the track and opposite to the charging machine (20), and used for temporary storage of materials; a loading and unloading robot (i.e. “a fetching mechanical hand” of English translation), wherein the loading and unloading robot is movably disposed on the track, and used for transporting the workpieces with adhesive plates to the temporary storage table, transporting the workpieces with adhesive plates on the temporary storage table to the diamond wire multi-wire cutting machines, taking out the machined workpieces from the diamond wire multi-wire cutting machines and moving the taken workpieces to a discharge end of the track; and a discharging machine (i.e. “discharging module” of English translation), wherein the discharging machine is arranged at the discharge end of the track, and used for receiving the machined workpieces and performing a discharging operation (Figs. 1-2, 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the multi-wire diamond cutting machine in a silicone ingot production line, as taught by YANG’651, in order to cut silicon ingots and thereby achieve the predictable result of forming silicon wafers (see claim 1 of English translation).
(B) Regarding Claim 10:
Modified YANG further teaches:
the charging machine (20, Fig. 1) and the temporary storage table (i.e. “first storage transfer mechanism” of English translation) are located on two sides of a middle part of the track (103); the roller conveyor (103), the charging machine (20), the temporary storage table (i.e. “first storage transfer mechanism” of English translation), the discharging machine (i.e. “discharge module” of English translation), and the track are all mounted on the ground (Fig. 1-2, 4); and the roller conveyor (103) is located between the track and the row of diamond wire multi-wire cutting machines (10, Fig. 1).
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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18537712.
Instant Application Claim 1
Copending Claim 1
A set of rollers and a set of bearing box assemblies
At least four shaft holes
At least four eccentric shaft sleeves…at least four shaft holes
Three rollers and three bearing box assemblies
Six shaft holes
Four eccentric shaft sleeves and two non-eccentric shaft sleeves…four shaft holes
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim 1 falls entirely within the scope of copending claim 1. Claim 1 of the instant application requires a cutting device that is identical to that of copending claim 1 except that the copending claim further requires specific number of rollers, bearing box assemblies, shaft holes, eccentric shaft sleeves, shaft holes, and two non-eccentric shaft sleeves. Thus, it is apparent that the instant application claim 1 is anticipated by the more specific copending claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18537712.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim 6 falls entirely within the scope of copending claim 1. Claim 6 of the instant application requires a cutting device that is identical to that of copending claim 1 except that the copending claim further requires two non-eccentric shaft sleeves. Thus, it is apparent that the instant application claim 6 is anticipated by the more specific copending claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 8 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18537712.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim 8 falls entirely within the scope of copending claim 10. Claim 8 of the instant application requires a diamond wire multi-wire cutting machine that is identical to that of copending claim 10 except that the copending claim further requires two non-eccentric shaft sleeves. Thus, it is apparent that the instant application claim 8 is anticipated by the more specific copending claim 10.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 115489039 to Fan et al. teaches a diamond cutting machine with eccentric bearing or non-eccentric bearing. CN 113568388 to Zhu teaches an automatic production line. CN 112719444 to Yang teaches a multi-line cutting machine. EP 2826582 to Schmid teaches a wire saw device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA M MCCAFFREY whose telephone number is (571)272-3438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (excluding Wednesday) 10AM - 2 PM 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 Courtney Heinle can be reached on 571-270-3508. 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.
KAYLA M. MCCAFFREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/Kayla McCaffrey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights