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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed 04/06/2026 have been entered.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection(s) is/are hereby withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings 04/06/2026 are objected to for entering new matter. The original drawings 09/28/2023 stated that numeral “2” corresponded to a “sprayer for cutting” [Specification 09/28/2023; paragraphs 0009, 0013, 0022]. The amended drawings show two “spray pipes” 20, which would be considered multiple sprayers.
While Applicant explains in the original specification that “the second sprayer for cutting 2 includes at least two spray pipes 20,” Applicant did not appear to show both pipes in the same drawing, let alone show any positional relationship that would now be considered shown in Figure 5 (such as, for example, where one pipe 20 is closer to the wheel 3 than the other). While Applicant had stated that they are on “one side,” a rod may only have one side if it is cylindrical, meaning that the second spray pipe 20 could’ve been opposite to the other spray pipe, relative to the rod, and still been on the same side. By amending the drawings, one can now claim both “pipes 20” are in between the rod and the wheel 30, which was not originally presented.
As only one structure was originally shown (one numeral and one contiguous drawing representing the numeral), then only one numeral should be used. This will be treated as similar to “wherein the one element may comprise multiple elements,” wherein the Figures can show one “second sprayer for cutting 2” which may comprise of two pipes, but only one pipe 20 can be considered shown in the Figures without adding new matter.
There are also other informalities, such as:
several numerals seemingly showing the same things (numerals 5, 1, 11, 12), all seemingly drawn to the same box in Figure 5;
There are two arrows for the “Spraying Direction” now, implying two different directions, making unclear which one is the singular “Spraying Direction,”;
The numeral “11” is used to show two different and distinct structures;
The numeral “12” is used to show two different and distinct structures;
There is no “slit” shown in the Figures, which is pivotal for understanding the now claimed “disposed corresponding to a slit of the crystal rod” and “wherein the second sprayer for cutting is configured to spray the slit of the crustal rod and discharge powers from the slit of the crystal rod” as now claimed.
Finally, because there is only one view shown, it’s not possible to understand the perspective shown. For example:
PNG
media_image1.png
512
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A single, partial view is not sufficient in understanding special relationships between features of a drawing. Furthermore, one shouldn’t be able to see the wire saw if it is slicing through the workpiece as described in the direction shown.
Response to Arguments
The arguments 04/06/2026 have been entered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima (US-2012/0192848) in view of Pietsch (US-9,346,188).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Nakashima (US-2012/0192848) discloses a sprayer for squaring a crystal rod (silicon ingot workpiece 10) (“[a] block silicon single crystal ingot”) [Nakashima; paragraph 0049], comprising
one or more first sprayers (nozzles 41) for wire guide wheel cleaning (“first coolant supply means 4 includes nozzles 41 disposed above one of the main rollers 3, which serves to cool the wire 2 and the main rollers 3 by supplying a coolant to the wire 2 and the main rollers 3”) [Nakashima; paragraph 0041] and
a second sprayer (nozzle 51 with guide board 52) for cutting (“second coolant supply means 5 includes nozzles 51 and guide boards 52, and serves to supply a coolant to side portions b.sub.1 and b.sub.2 of the silicon ingot B to be cut where the wire passes in slicing of the silicon ingot”) [Nakashima; paragraph 0042],
wherein each of the first sprayers (nozzles 41) for wire guide wheel cleaning is disposed at a side of a wire guide wheel (main rollers 3) (“wire saw 1 includes a wire supply and take-up means (not shown) for supplying and taking up a wire 2, main rollers 3 spaced a predetermined distance from each other in parallel”) [Nakashima; paragraph 0040],
wherein each of the first sprayers (nozzles 41) for wire guide wheel cleaning is configured to flush flushing foreign matters in the wire guide groove in a process of squaring the crystal rod (workpiece 10) (provides a flow of water, i.e. flushes, the roller, as shown in Fig. 1); and
wherein the second sprayer (nozzle 51 with guide board 52) for cutting is disposed at a side of the crystal rod (workpiece 10) (Fig. 1) and is disposed corresponding to a slit of the crystal rod in a process of squaring the crystal rod (“the tips 52a of the guide boards are placed in the vicinity of the side portions b.sub.1 and b.sub.2 of the silicon ingot to be cut so that the coolant ejected from the slits or the nozzle openings of the nozzles 51 is guided to the side portions b.sub.1 and b.sub.2 of the silicon ingot to be cut”) [Nakashima; paragraph 0043],
wherein the second sprayer (nozzle 51 with guide board 52) for cutting is configured to spray the slit of the crystal rod and discharge powders from the slit of the crystal rod (“the tips 52a of the guide boards are placed in the vicinity of the side portions b.sub.1 and b.sub.2 of the silicon ingot to be cut so that the coolant ejected from the slits or the nozzle openings of the nozzles 51 is guided to the side portions b.sub.1 and b.sub.2 of the silicon ingot to be cut”) [Nakashima; paragraph 0043].
Nakashima fails to disclose “a liquid spray direction [of the first sprayers 41] corresponding to a wire guide groove of the wire guide wheel, particularly because there is no “wire guide groove” shown by Nakashima.
However, Pietsch (US-9,346,188) teaches a liquid spray direction of first sprayers (19, 20) corresponding to a wire guide groove of a respective wire guide wheel (wire guide rolls 3, 4) (Fig. 1) (“The wire guide rolls are cylindrical and mounted rotatably about their longitudinal axes. Their lateral surfaces have a multiplicity of grooves running concentrically about the axis and largely equidistantly with respect to one another.”) [Pietsch; col. 2, lines 37-41]. Since Nakashima uses wire guide wheels, it therefore would’ve been obvious to modify the wire guide wheels of Nakashima with grooves as taught by Pietsch in order to guide the wire [Pietsch; col. 2, lines 37-41], wherein such grooves would be sprayed by the first sprayers 41 of Nakashima which spray the wheels over their length.
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Nakashima discloses the sprayer according to claim 1, wherein the one or more first sprayers (nozzles 41) for wire guide wheel cleaning comprise a plurality of first sprayers (two nozzles 41) for wire guide wheel cleaning, at least one first sprayer (nozzle 41) for wire guide wheel cleaning of the plurality of first sprayers for wire guide wheel cleaning is disposed at a side of any one wire guide wheel (main rollers 3) (Fig. 1) in contact with a diamond wire (wire 2) involved in a cutting process (Figure 1 shows the guide wheel 3 in contact with the wire 2), and each of the plurality of first sprayers for wire guide wheel cleaning has a pipe structure.
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Nakashima discloses the sprayer according to claim 8, wherein the liquid spray direction of each of the plurality of first sprayers (two nozzles 41) for wire guide wheel cleaning is parallel to a diameter direction of the wire guide wheel (wheels 3) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Nakashima discloses the sprayer according to claim 8, wherein the liquid spray direction of each of the plurality of first sprayers (two nozzles 41) for wire guide wheel cleaning intersect a diameter direction of the wire guide wheel (shown below in Figure 1, with the dotted line representing a diameter direction of the wire guide wheel 3 and the solid line arrow representing the spray direction of the sprayer/nozzle 41) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Nakashima discloses a crystal rod squaring device comprising the sprayer for squaring the crystal rod according to claim 1 disposed inside the crystal rod squaring device (the device shown in Figure 1).
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima (US-5,269,285) in view of Pietsch (US-9,346,188) and further in view of Lee (US-2012/0167733).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Nakashima discloses the sprayer according to claim 1, wherein the second sprayer (nozzle 51 with guide board 52) for cutting comprises at least two spray pipes (nozzles 51) located at the side of the crystal rod (10), but fails to disclose each having a liquid spray direction corresponding to the slit.
However, Lee (US-2012/0167733) teaches having a liquid spray direction corresponding to the slit (Fig. 2). Lee teaches “nozzles 3 for spraying a cooling fluid are provided about a site of cutting, so that the cooling fluid is introduced to the site of cutting, with the attempt to dissipate the heat generated during cutting and to wash off cutting chips from the diamond wire 1 and the workpiece, thereby improving cutting capability of the cutting system and tooled surfaces of the workpiece while effectively preventing warpage or deformation from happening to the workpiece” [Lee; paragraph 0005]. Since Nakashima desires to supply coolant to the side of the ingot to be cut where the wire passes in slicing of the silicon ingot [Nakashima; paragraph 0042], and therefore it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nozzle of Nakashima to have a liquid spray direction as taught by Lee, which is a direction corresponding to the slit, in order to introduce the cooling fluid at the site of cutting without using the guide boards 52 of Nakashima [Lee; paragraph 0005] [Nakashima; paragraph 0042].
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Nakashima, as modified by Lee, discloses the sprayer according to claim 2, wherein the at least two spray pipes (nozzles 51) are located in a same plane (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Nakashima, as modified by Lee, discloses the sprayer according to claim 3, wherein each of the at least two spray pipes (nozzles 51) is arranged parallel to an axis of the crystal rod (workpiece 10) (“the longitudinal direction of the nozzles 51 is perpendicular to the plane of paper, and known nozzles such as tubular nozzles each provided with a slit or a plurality of nozzle openings along the longitudinal direction can be employed for the nozzles 51”) [Nakashima; paragraph 0042].
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Nakashima, as modified by Lee, discloses the sprayer according to claim 2, wherein the at least two spray pipes (nozzles 51) are arranged in sequence (subsequent) in a direction close to the crystal rod (workpiece 10) (Fig. 1), and the at least two spray pipes (nozzles 51) are arranged in a plane (Figure 6 shows a cross-sectional plane) in which slits of the crystal rod (workpiece 10) are located (Figure 6, showing a plane, includes both the wire which forms the slits and the nozzles).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Nakashima, as modified by Lee, discloses the sprayer according to claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein a distance between adjacent spray pipes of the at least two spray pipes (51) ranges from 2 cm to 5 cm.
However, Suzuki (US-6,006,736) teaches adjusting a distance between opposing structures, opposite of the ingot 2, such to be “spaced apart a distance selected to receive the diameter of the ingot 2” [Suzuki; col. 3, lines 24-28]. Since Suzuki is pertinent to ingot cutting, it therefore would’ve been an obvious design choice, in view of Suzuki, to modify the distance between adjacent spray pipes of Nakashimi to any distance so desired to accommodate sizes of ingots below 2cm to 5cm, while still being close enough, as desired by Nakashimi, to supply coolant to the side of the ingot to be cut where the wire passes in slicing of the silicon ingot [Nakashima; paragraph 0042].
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Nakashima, as modified by Lee, discloses the sprayer according to claim 2, wherein a plurality of spray holes (“plurality of nozzle openings”) are provided on a side of any one spray pipe (nozzles 51) of the at least two spray pipes (nozzles 51) (“the longitudinal direction of the nozzles 51 is perpendicular to the plane of paper, and known nozzles such as tubular nozzles each provided with a slit or a plurality of nozzle openings along the longitudinal direction can be employed for the nozzles 51”) [Nakashima; paragraph 0042] facing the crystal rod (as modified by Lee), and the plurality of spray holes (“plurality of nozzle openings”) are sequentially arranged in a row along an axial direction of the any one spray pipe (nozzle 51) (“the longitudinal direction of the nozzles 51 is perpendicular to the plane of paper, and known nozzles such as tubular nozzles each provided with a slit or a plurality of nozzle openings along the longitudinal direction can be employed for the nozzles 51”) [Nakashima; paragraph 0042].
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights