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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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 of this title, 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, 2, 10, 11, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch (US 20200152491 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Koch teaches:
An unloading and collecting device for a component (B) cut from the end of a silicon wafer, configured to collect the component separated from a stock of material [it is implied that an electrical component would be manufactured from materials supplied from a larger batch] and fed by a feed rod (110), wherein the device comprises a tray (152) configured to adsorb and release the component, a box (ES1 & ES2) configured to receive the component (Fig. 1) [0118 & 0122 & 0123 & 0125 & 0127], and a movable assembly (150), the box is disposed on a side of the movable assembly away from the feed rod in a first direction parallel to an axis direction of the feed rod (Fig. 1), and the movable assembly has a rod member (1000) connected to the tray (Fig. 1), wherein the tray is rotatable clockwise under driving by the rod member from a first position to a second position in the first direction (Fig. 1) [0120 & 0122], wherein the tray adsorbs the slice at the first position, and carries the slice into the box at the second position (Fig. 1).
Koch does not teach:
the component is a slice cut from an end of a silicon rod.
Notwithstanding that the inclusion of the work material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to accommodate slices cut from an end of a silicon rod in order to provide a means for efficiently transferring raw materials to supply manufacturing processes, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (referred to in MPEP 2144.07)
Regarding Claim 2, Koch teaches:
a plurality of vacuum suction holes [0126] and a detector [0127] are provided on the tray, the plurality of vacuum suction holes are disposed along a radial periphery of the tray, and the detector is configured to detect a position of the slice [0127].
Regarding Claim 10, Koch teaches:
the box is disposed on a side of the movable member away from the silicon wafer and below the movable assembly (Fig. 1).
Koch does not teach:
the component is a slice cut from an end of a silicon rod.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to accommodate slices cut from an end of a silicon rod in order to provide a means for efficiently transferring raw materials to supply manufacturing processes, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (referred to in MPEP 2144.07)
Regarding Claim 10, Koch teaches:
the box is disposed on a side of the movable member away from the silicon wafer and below the movable assembly (Fig. 1).
Koch does not teach:
the component is a slice cut from an end of a silicon rod.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to accommodate slices cut from an end of a silicon rod in order to provide a means for efficiently transferring raw materials to supply manufacturing processes, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (referred to in MPEP 2144.07)
Regarding Claim 16, Koch teaches:
A cutting machine (110), comprising the unloading and collecting device for slice of claim 1 (Fig. 1) [abstract].
Regarding Claim 17, Koch teaches:
A cutting machine (110), comprising the unloading and collecting device for slice of claim 2 (Fig. 1) [abstract].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The art of record fails to render obvious the claimed combination of: “An unloading and collecting device for slice, configured to collect the slice cut from an end of a silicon rod, wherein the device comprises a tray configured to adsorb and release the slice, a box configured to receive the slice, and a movable assembly, the box is disposed on a side of the movable assembly away from the silicon rod in a first direction parallel to an axis direction of the silicon rod, and the movable assembly has a rod member connected to the tray, wherein the tray is rotatable clockwise under driving by the rod member from a first position to a second position in the first direction, wherein the tray adsorbs the slice at the first position, and carries the slice into the box at the second position.”, as recited in Claim 3 specifically:
the structural and operative relationship between the slice, silicon rod, tray, box, movable assembly, rod member, cantilever arm, and driving member. Especially as it relates to the relationship between the slice, silicon rod, tray, box, movable assembly, rod member, cantilever arm, and driving member.
The art of record fails to render obvious the claimed combination of: “An unloading and collecting device for slice, configured to collect the slice cut from an end of a silicon rod, wherein the device comprises a tray configured to adsorb and release the slice, a box configured to receive the slice, and a movable assembly, the box is disposed on a side of the movable assembly away from the silicon rod in a first direction parallel to an axis direction of the silicon rod, and the movable assembly has a rod member connected to the tray, wherein the tray is rotatable clockwise under driving by the rod member from a first position to a second position in the first direction, wherein the tray adsorbs the slice at the first position, and carries the slice into the box at the second position.”, as recited in Claim 4 specifically:
the structural and operative relationship between the slice, silicon rod, tray, box, movable assembly, rod member, vacuum suction holes, detector, cantilever arm, and driving member. Especially as it relates to the relationship between the slice, silicon rod, tray, box, movable assembly, rod member, vacuum suction holes, detector, cantilever arm, and driving member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 16, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments, see Response to Non-Final Office Action, filed 2026/02/13, with respect to the Examiner’s Rejection of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner’s Rejection of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 has been withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 571-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights