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 of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 5, 7-10, and 14-20 have been rejected.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 11-13 are objected to.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed for Application No. CN202211053022.5 on 09/01/2023.
The instant application therefore claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d). Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 8/31/2022 claiming benefit to CN202211053022.
Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
paragraphs [0065-99] are missing from the disclosure – either renumber the paragraphs or produce the missing information in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.52(b)(1) Language, paper, writing, margins, read-only optical disc specifications – see MPEP § 608.01 for additional guidance on amendments to the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: measurement module (claims 14 and 15) and a determiner (claims 14, 17, and 18). The specification only provides that the module and the determiner are a part of a “processing system” that has an “external analysis and processing controller” for “executing a cutting program” (see at least ¶ 0077 and in the Drawings at fig. 6 ref char 50).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections-35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a)-(b):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
(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.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite a measurement module (claims 14 and 15) and a determiner (claims 14, 17, and 18), however, the specification fails to have any specific hardware configuration or computer for performing the claimed steps, merely stating the module and determiner are part of a “processing system” that has an “external analysis and processing controller” for “executing a cutting program” (see at least ¶ 0077 and in the Drawings at fig. 6 ref char 50). While the disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification, it must be clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation (see MPEP § 2181(II)(A)). Here, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably conclude (1) both the determiner and module are general purpose computers, (2) the determiner be performed with a general purpose computer and the module as a particular measuring device such as an electronic caliper, etc., (3) both by a special purpose computer, etc.. Therefore, there fails to be adequate written description for the module or determiner.
Claims 16, 19, and 20 depend on claim 14 and do not remedy the written description requirement issues of claim 14. As dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend on, they are also rejected.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The term “slowly” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slowly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (only noting a preferred embodiment and possible reference values in ¶ 0086), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore the speed in which the wire net rotates is indefinite.
Dependent claim 6 repairs this deficiency by clearly defining the speed as less than or equal to 0.1 m/s, and therefore is not rejected. Dependent claim 7 do not remedy the indefiniteness issue of claim 5. As dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend on, dependent claim 7 is also rejected.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim limitations " a measurement module (claims 14 and 15) and a determiner (claims 14, 17, and 18) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to have any specific hardware configuration or computer for performing the claimed steps. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 16, 19, and 20 depend on claim 14 and do not remedy the indefiniteness issues of claim 14. As dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend on, they are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 8-10, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1, 8-10, 14, and 17-19 are drawn to a method or system, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a processing method for cutting though a workpiece.
Independent claim 14 recites a processing system for cutting though a workpiece.
These independent claims recite the following steps best characterized as a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in general:
obtaining measured bow values of all areas in a wire net when a feed rate of a workpiece cutting reaches a preset threshold;
comparing the measured bow values of all areas in an obtained wire net with a standard bow value when the workpiece is cut through;
determining that the workpiece has been cut through when the measured bow values of all areas in the wire net are less than or equal to the standard bow value; and
determining that the workpiece is not cut through when any area of the wire net has a measured bow value greater than the standard bow value.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations, these limitations are best characterized as applying a mental process to a generic computing environment - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2).
Dependent claim 8 recites, in part, determining a length of an effective cutting line in a remaining wire amount in a spool; and based on the length of the effective cutting line, determining the rotation direction of the wire net when additionally cutting the workpiece
Dependent claim 9 recites, in part, determining whether there is a butt line in the remaining wire amount in the spool; and based on a length of the butt line, determining the length of the effective cutting line.
Dependent claim 10 recites, in part, when the length of the butt line is zero, the length of the effective cutting line is a length of the remaining wire amount; when the length of the butt line is greater than zero, the length of the effective cutting line is the length of the remaining wire amount minus the length of the butt line.
Dependent claim 17 recites, in part, determine a length of an effective cutting line in a remaining wire amount in a spool; and based on the length of the effective cutting line, determine the rotation direction of the wire net when additionally cutting the workpiece.
Dependent claim 18 recites, in part, determine whether there is a butt line in the remaining wire amount in the spool; and based on a length of the butt line, determine the length of the effective cutting line.
Dependent claim 19 recites, in part, when the length of the butt line is zero, the length of the effective cutting line is a length of the remaining wire amount; when the length of the butt line is greater than zero, the length of the effective cutting line is the length of the remaining wire amount minus the length of the butt line.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 or 14 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same mental process abstract idea grouping as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claim 14 and 15 recite a measurement module and claims 14, 17, and 18 recite. The specification fails to have any specific hardware configuration or computer for performing the claimed steps, merely stating the module and determiner are part of a “processing system” that has an “external analysis and processing controller” for “executing a cutting program” (see at least ¶ 0077 and in the Drawings at fig. 6 ref char 50). The use of the module and the determiner therefore are merely recited as a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 14 and 15 recite a measurement module and claims 14, 17, and 18 recite. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) integrating the evidentiary requirements in making a § 101 rejection as established in Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1, 8-10, 14, and 17-19 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-7, 11-13, 15-16, and 20 recite additional elements that when considered amount to meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment similar to Diamond v. Diehr, wherein the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4. The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184, 187, 209 USPQ at 7, 8 (see MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations).
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art:
The limitations in independent claims 1 and 14 stating: obtaining measured bow values of all areas in a wire net when a feed rate of a workpiece cutting reaches a preset threshold and determining that the workpiece has been cut through when the measured bow values of all areas in the wire net are less than or equal to the standard bow value is free of the prior art.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language requires measuring the bow of a wire net at a plurality of locations while cutting though an ingot and determining the cut is completed when said bow values all measure less than or equal to an expected bow value.
The most remarkable prior arts of record are as follows:
Liu et al., A new method of determining the slicing parameters for fixed diamond wire saw, 120 Materials Science in Semiconductor Processing (2020) teaching on measuring wire bow angle during ingot cutting for monitoring wire slicing quality and efficiency in the § 1. Introduction on p. 2 col 2 and § 3.1 Wire bow angle on p. 4-5
Zhang (CN108162214A) teaching on measuring bow of the wire net to improve ingot cutting production efficiency and accuracy generally in the Detailed Description on p. 3 line 52- p. 4 line 25
Coustier et al., Wire-bow in situ measurements for powerful control of wire wear during diamond-wire crystalline silicon sawing, 93 Review of Scientific Instruments (March 02, 2022) teaching on bow measurement sensors typical in the ingot cutting device and the utilization of said sensors for determining wire cutting efficiency and wire wear in the § III. Wire Bow and Cutting Efficiency Theoretical Relationship on p. 7 and in Fig. 2 on p. 2
Behm et al., Challenges of the wire saw wafering process, 11 Photovoltaics International 36-47 (Feb 2011) teaching on the bow force of the wire as the wire passes through the ingot and the reduction of said force once the cutting is completed generally in the § Force measurements during wire sawing p. 39 col 3
While Zhang, Lui, Coustier, and Behm each teach on measuring bow values for operational maintenance and efficiency of an ingot cutting machine, none teach on utilizing a comparative wire net wide bow values to determine when a cut completion occurs during ingot cutting. Therefore, claims 1-20 are free of the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, and 13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights