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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-11 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al. (CN 111531733, "Xing") in view of Qu et al. (CN 107379296, "Qu").
1. Xing teaches a method for cutting a monocrystalline silicon square rod (M12 wafers are definitionally monocrystalline squares, which means they are cut from a square rod, Xing Translation [0008]), comprising steps of:
loading: providing the square rod on a working platform clamping the square rod (S1-S2, Xing Translation [0009]-[0010] and [0060]-[0061]), and lowering the square rod until it comes into contact with a diamond wire (S5, Xing Translation [0013] and [0064]);
cutting: setting cutting parameters (Xing Translation [0013] and [0064]), cutting the square rod by forward and reverse reciprocating movement of the diamond wire along an extension direction of the diamond wire (reciprocating cutting, Xing Translation [0064]]); and
unloading: gradually separating the square rod from the diamond wire (S6, Xing Translation [0014]).
Xing does not explicitly teach that the speed of the working platform varies synchronously with wire speed of the diamond wire during the cutting.
However, Qu teaches the concept of synchronously varying the feed speed of a platform (G) with wire speed (Z) during a cutting process (Qu figs. 1-2 and Qu Translation [0031]-[0045]) using diamond wire to cut a monocrystalline silicon ingot (Qu Translation [0004]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Qu regarding synchronizing feed rate with wire speed to modify the method of Xing such that a first speed of the working platform varied synchronously with wire speed of the diamond wire, as doing so would increase cutting efficiency and reduce wire breakage (Qu Translation [0027]).
2. Xing as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cutting step comprises a tool-feeding step, a main-cutting step, and a tool-retracting step, wherein throughout the tool-feeding step, the main-cutting step, and the tool-retracting step, the first speed varies synchronously with the wire speed (Xing teaches that cutting involves three steps cutting at depths of 0-5%, 5-60%, and 60-100%, respectively, Xing Translation [0020]-[0023], Xing as modified by Qu teaches wire speed is always synchronized).
Regarding claims 3-11, Xing as modified teaches the method of claim 2 and further teaches three cutting steps:
a) to a cutting depth of 5% of height, with a wire speed of 600 m/min to 900 m/min and a feed speed of 1-1.5 mm/min (Xing translation [0040], [0053], and [0065]);
b) to cutting depths from 5%-60% of height, with a wire speed of 2100 m/min and a feed speed of 2.5-3 mm/min (Xing translation [0041], [0054], and [0066]); and
c) to cutting depths from 60%-100% of height, with a wire speed of 2100 m/min and a feed speed of 0.15-0.25 mm/min (Xing translation [0042], [0055], and [0067]).
Xing further teaches that for each step, the time for acceleration and deceleration of the diamond wire is 5 seconds, and that the general range for cutting feed is between 0.15 mm/min and 3.5 mm/min (Xing Translation [0039], [0051], and [0064]). The ranges taught by Xing for maximum wire speed and feed speeds either overlap with those recited in claims 3-11 (and therefore anticipate the claimed ranges, see MPEP § 2131.03(2)) or are sufficiently close as to render the claimed ranges obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
As noted in the rejection of claim 1, above, Xing does not explicitly teach that the feed rate oscillates between a minimum rate of 0.2 mm/min and the higher rates it discloses for each cutting step.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to further modify the method of Xing to reach the claimed invention, as Qu not only teaches synchronizing feed rate with wire speed such that the speed of the table changes linearly (Qu Translation [0018]-[0021]), but also teaches that the minimum feed rate should be greater than zero (Qu Translation [0025]). Although Qu does not specify a minimum feed rate, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Xing such that the feed rate oscillated between 0.2 mm/min and 0.4 mm/min to 1.2 mm/min in the first cutting step, between 0.2 mm/min and 2.2 mm/min to 3.2 mm/min in the second cutting step, and between 0.2 mm/min and 0.3 mm/min to 3.2 mm/min in the final cutting step, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05(II) The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the relative minimum and maximum feed rates for each of the cutting steps which achieves the recognized result of increased cutting efficiency and reduced wire breakage (Qu Translation [0027]), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the claimed range is critical.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723