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 .
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 (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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN110391149A), attached as a PDF and hereinafter referred to as Liu, in view of Jin et al. (CN213111381U), attached as a PDF and hereinafter referred to as Jin, and in further view of Runkel (DE102006043567A1), attached as a PDF.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a silicon wafer transfer auxiliary device (all elements shown in Fig. 3), comprising:
a vertical to horizontal transition structure (Fig. 1 element 61); and
a blowpipe (Fig. 1 element 5) disposed on a side of the vertical to horizontal transition structure (Fig. 3, where the blowpipe is disposed on a front side of the vertical to horizontal transition structure), wherein a nozzle (Fig. 3, where the exit aperture of the blowpipe which sprays the silicon wafer corresponds to a nozzle, 0065) of each blowpipe is inclined towards the side of the vertical to horizontal transition structure (Fig. 3, 0065), and the blowpipe is configured to spray liquid or gas (0065, where "high-pressure air" corresponds to gas) towards a silicon wafer (Fig. 2 element 8, 0065) during transfer to increase an adsorption force between the silicon wafer and the vertical to horizontal transition structure (0065) and to successfully complete a turning of the silicon wafer from a vertical direction to a side close to the vertical to horizontal transition structure (0066, where "vertical state" corresponds to a vertical direction and when the wafer is turned to "a horizontal state" the wafer will be by a rear side of the vertical to horizontal transition structure which corresponds to a side close to the vertical to horizontal transition structure).
Liu fails to disclose that the vertical to horizontal transition structure is a sorting wheel and that there are a plurality of blowpipes and nozzles.
Jin is also concerned with a silicon wafer transfer auxiliary device and teaches the vertical to horizontal transition structure is a sorting wheel (Fig. 1 element 5, n0049). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Liu discloses the invention except that the vertical to horizontal transition structure is a feed belt instead of a sorting wheel. Jin shows that a sorting wheel is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both structures transition a wafer from a vertical position to a horizontal position). Therefore, because these two vertical to horizontal transition structure types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a sorting wheel for a feed belt.
Liu, as modified, fails to disclose that there are a plurality blowpipes and nozzles.
Runkel is also concerned with using spray nozzles for spraying a workpiece and teaches a plurality of blowpipes (Fig. 2 elements 2 and 3) and a plurality of nozzles (Fig. 2, where the exit aperture of each blowpipe corresponds to a nozzle). It 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 to modify the silicon wafer transfer auxiliary device of Liu, as modified, to use a plurality of blowpipes and nozzles instead of a single blowpipe and nozzle because Runkel teaches that providing a plurality of blowpipes and nozzles "can increase operational reliability and reduce production downtime" (0023).
Regarding claim 2, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a frame set (Liu, see annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the blowpipes are all configured on the frame set across a width direction (Liu, Fig. 2, where the left to right direction corresponds to a width direction) of the sorting wheel and are located on a side of the frame set away from the sorting wheel (Liu, see annotated Fig. 2 below, where the bottom side of the frame set corresponds to a side of the frame set away from the sorting wheel).
PNG
media_image1.png
337
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the nozzle of each of the plurality of blowpipes is configured to spray toward a surface of the silicon wafer on a side away from the sorting wheel (Liu, Fig. 3, 0065, where to "press the silicon wafer 8 against the feeding belt" requires the spray to be toward a side of the wafer which faces away from the sorting wheel).
Regarding claim 4, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the nozzles of all the blowpipes are disposed in a same direction (Runkel, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further discloses a number of the blowpipes is at least two, and the blowpipes are disposed along a width direction of the silicon wafer or/and perpendicular to the width direction of the silicon wafer (Runkel, Fig. 2, where Fig. 2 shows the blowpipes disposed linearly along the direction of travel which corresponds to the blowpipes being disposed perpendicular to the width direction of the silicon wafer shown in Liu).
Regarding claim 6, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, but fails to disclose a central width of two outermost blowpipes in a same row is not greater than 3/4 of a width of the silicon wafer and not less than 1/2 of the width of the silicon wafer. Liu, as modified, discloses that there is a central width of two outermost blowpipes in a same row, but is silent to the specific dimension/provide a range for the central width to fall within. In other words, Liu, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose (a) definite values the central width is to range between not greater than 3/4 of a width of the silicon wafer and not less than 1/2 of the width of the silicon wafer. The central width is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the pushing power supplied by the two outermost blowpipes (which is in this case the only two blowpipes) is directly proportional to the spacing between the two outermost blowpipes, and thus it is directly proportional to the central width. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the two outermost blowpipes in a same row has a central width, was disclosed in the prior art (specifically, having two outermost blowpipes in a same row means that you will necessarily have a central width between them) by Liu, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the two outermost blowpipes in a same row disclosed by Liu, as modified, have a central width which is not greater than 3/4 of a width of the silicon wafer and not less than 1/2 of the width of the silicon wafer based on the desired pushing power to be supplied from two outermost blowpipes in a same row.
Regarding claim 7, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the frame set comprises a cross bar and a side plate fixed on the cross bar, and the cross bar is detachably connected with the side plate (Liu, see annotated Fig. 2' below, where the cross bar is capable of being detached from the side plate).
PNG
media_image2.png
321
734
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses both ends of the cross bar are respectively fixed on a frame placed outside the sorting wheel (Liu, see annotated Fig. 2'' below and annotated Fig. 2 above, where both the top and bottom ends of the cross bar are respectively fixed on the frame shown in annotated Fig. 2'' below and the frame is outside the sorting wheel).
PNG
media_image3.png
322
825
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses the side plate is vertically disposed and configured as a plate structure (Liu, Figs. 1-3 show the side plate being vertically disposed and Fig.2 shows the side plate as having a plate structure (i.e. plate shaped structure)).
Liu, as modified, fails to disclose that a width of a top end of the side plate is narrower than a width of a bottom end of the side plate. Pursuant MPEP 2144.04-IV-B, it 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 to modify the silicon wafer transfer auxiliary device of Liu, as modified, with regards to a desired shape (in this case, the top of the side plate being narrower than a bottom of the side plate) in adapting the connector for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide criticality for this limitation in the specification. Paragraph 0038 of Applicant’s specification provides a purported benefit that this limitation “can reduce its weight” but does not provide any reasons why the particular claimed configuration is necessary to reduce weight or why the side plate would be non-functional if it did not have the claimed shape, and therefore examiner finds that there is no criticality provided for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses each of the blowpipes is configured on a side of the side plate away from the sorting wheel and is located below the cross bar (Liu, see annotated Fig. 2''' below, annotated Fig. 2 above, and annotated Fig. 2' above, where the bottom side of the side plate corresponds to a side of the side plate away from the sorting wheel and annotated Fig. 2 above shows the downward direction and that the blowpipes are located below the cross bar).
PNG
media_image4.png
239
451
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses a slicing machine (all elements shown in Fig. 1) comprising:
a silicon wafer transfer auxiliary device (all elements shown in Fig. 3), comprising:
a vertical to horizontal transition structure (Fig. 1 element 61); and
a blowpipe (Fig. 1 element 5) disposed on a side of the vertical to horizontal transition structure (Fig. 3, where the blowpipe is disposed on a front side of the vertical to horizontal transition structure), wherein a nozzle (Fig. 3, where the exit aperture of the blowpipe which sprays the silicon wafer corresponds to a nozzle, 0065) of the blowpipe is inclined towards the side of the vertical to horizontal transition structure (Fig. 3, 0065), and the blowpipe is configured to spray liquid or gas (0065, where "high-pressure air" corresponds to gas) towards a silicon wafer (Fig. 2 element 8, 0065) during transfer to increase an adsorption force between the silicon wafer and the vertical to horizontal transition structure (0065) and to successfully complete a turning of the silicon wafer from a vertical direction to a side close to the vertical to horizontal transition structure (0066, where "vertical state" corresponds to a vertical direction and when the wafer is turned to "a horizontal state" the wafer will be by a rear side of the vertical to horizontal transition structure which corresponds to a side close to the vertical to horizontal transition structure).
Liu fails to disclose that the vertical to horizontal transition structure is a sorting wheel and that there are a plurality of blowpipes and nozzles.
Jin is also concerned with a silicon wafer transfer auxiliary device and teaches the vertical to horizontal transition structure is a sorting wheel (Fig. 1 element 5, n0049). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Liu discloses the invention except that the vertical to horizontal transition structure is a feed belt instead of a sorting wheel. Jin shows that a sorting wheel is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both structures transition a wafer from a vertical position to a horizontal position). Therefore, because these two vertical to horizontal transition structure types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a sorting wheel for a feed belt.
Liu, as modified, fails to disclose that there are a plurality of blowpipes and nozzles.
Runkel is also concerned with using spray nozzles for spraying a workpiece and teaches a plurality of blowpipes (Fig. 2 elements 2 and 3) and a plurality of nozzles (Fig. 2, where the exit aperture of each blowpipe corresponds to a nozzle). It 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 to modify the silicon wafer transfer auxiliary device of Liu, as modified, to use a plurality of blowpipes and nozzles instead of a single blowpipe and nozzle because Runkel teaches that providing a plurality of blowpipes and nozzles "can increase operational reliability and reduce production downtime" (0023).
Regarding claim 12, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses a frame set (Liu, see annotated Fig. 2 above), wherein the blowpipes are all configured on the frame set across a width direction (Liu, Fig. 2, where the left to right direction corresponds to a width direction) of the sorting wheel and are located on a side of the frame set away from the sorting wheel (Liu, see annotated Fig. 2 above, where the bottom side of the frame set corresponds to a side of the frame set away from the sorting wheel).
Regarding claim 13, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses the nozzle of each of the plurality of blowpipes is configured to spray toward a surface of the silicon wafer on a side away from the sorting wheel (Liu, Fig. 3, 0065, where to "press the silicon wafer 8 against the feeding belt" requires the spray to be toward a side of the wafer which faces away from the sorting wheel).
Regarding claim 14, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses the nozzles of all the blowpipes are disposed in a same direction (Runkel, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and further discloses a number of the blowpipes is at least two, and the blowpipes are disposed along a width direction of the silicon wafer or/and perpendicular to the width direction of the silicon wafer (Runkel, Fig. 2, where Fig. 2 shows the blowpipes disposed linearly along the direction of travel which corresponds to the blowpipes being disposed perpendicular to the width direction of the silicon wafer shown in Liu).
Regarding claim 16, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, but fails to disclose a central width of two outermost blowpipes in a same row is not greater than 3/4 of a width of the silicon wafer and not less than 1/2 of the width of the silicon wafer. Liu, as modified, discloses that there is a central width of two outermost blowpipes in a same row, but is silent to the specific dimension/provide a range for the central width to fall within. In other words, Liu, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose (a) definite values the central width is to range between not greater than 3/4 of a width of the silicon wafer and not less than 1/2 of the width of the silicon wafer. The central width is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the pushing power supplied by the two outermost blowpipes (which is in this case the only two blowpipes) is directly proportional to the spacing between the two outermost blowpipes, and thus it is directly proportional to the central width. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the two outermost blowpipes in a same row has a central width, was disclosed in the prior art (specifically, having two outermost blowpipes in a same row means that you will necessarily have a central width between them) by Liu, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the two outermost blowpipes in a same row disclosed by Liu, as modified, have a central width which is not greater than 3/4 of a width of the silicon wafer and not less than 1/2 of the width of the silicon wafer based on the desired pushing power to be supplied from two outermost blowpipes in a same row.
Regarding claim 17, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses the frame set comprises a cross bar and a side plate fixed on the cross bar, and the cross bar is detachably connected with the side plate (Liu, see annotated Fig. 2' above, where the cross bar is capable of being detached from the side plate).
Regarding claim 18, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses both ends of the cross bar are respectively fixed on a frame placed outside the sorting wheel (Liu, see annotated Fig. 2'' above and annotated Fig. 2 above, where both the top and bottom ends of the cross bar are respectively fixed on the frame shown in annotated Fig. 2'' above and the frame is outside the sorting wheel).
Regarding claim 19, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and further discloses the side plate is vertically disposed and configured as a plate structure (Liu, Figs. 1-3 show the side plate being vertically disposed and Fig.2 shows the side plate as having a plate structure (i.e. plate shaped structure)).
Liu, as modified, fails to disclose that a width of a top end of the side plate is narrower than a width of a bottom end of the side plate. Pursuant MPEP 2144.04-IV-B, it 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 to modify the silicon wafer transfer auxiliary device of Liu, as modified, with regards to a desired shape (in this case, the top of the side plate being narrower than a bottom of the side plate) in adapting the connector for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide criticality for this limitation in the specification. Paragraph 0038 of Applicant’s specification provides a purported benefit that this limitation “can reduce its weight” but does not provide any reasons why the particular claimed configuration is necessary to reduce weight or why the side plate would be non-functional if it did not have the claimed shape, and therefore examiner finds that there is no criticality provided for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 20, Liu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and further discloses each of the blowpipes is configured on a side of the side plate away from the sorting wheel and is located below the cross bar (Liu, see annotated Fig. 2''' above, annotated Fig. 2 above, and annotated Fig. 2' above, where the bottom side of the side plate corresponds to a side of the side plate away from the sorting wheel and annotated Fig. 2 above shows the downward direction and that the blowpipes are located below the cross bar).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that modifying Liu with the sorting wheel taught by Jin is improper because “Jin does not disclose any blowpipe, nozzle, or spraying structure, and has no component for spraying gas or liquid whatsoever. Jin also does not teach any technical means for enhancing adsorption or assisting turning by spraying, let alone a structure or positional relationship in which the nozzle of each of the blowpipes is inclined toward the wheel”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Jin is only being relied upon to teach a sorting wheel, not any of the additional structure argued by Applicant. Examiner finds that both Liu and Jin are concerned with a structure which moves a wafer from a vertical position to a horizontal position to transfer the wafer and that Jin shows that a sorting wheel is an equivalent structure to the feed belt used in Liu. Applicant has not argued why these two structures would not be considered equivalent structures and therefore examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that modifying Liu, as modified, to have a plurality of blowpipes and nozzles taught by Runkel is improper because “Runkel does not relate to or teach the application scenario and functions of silicon wafer transfer, adsorption, and gentle turning as recited in amended claims 1 and 11, and thus a person skilled in the art would have not had a motivation to apply the descaling device of Runkel to the silicon wafer transfer devices of Liu and Jin”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that both Liu and Runkel are concerned with using blowpipe(s) and nozzle(s) to spray a workpiece and examiner finds that Runkel teaches that providing a plurality of blowpipes/nozzles instead of a single blowpipe/nozzle provides redundancy in the system which reduces downtime because if one blowpipe/nozzle breaks, then there are still other blowpipes/nozzles which can be used.
Applicant argues that “even combining Liu, Jin, and Runkel cannot arrive at the structure of "a plurality of blowpipes + each nozzle inclined toward the sorting wheel" as defined in amended Claims 1 and 11. This structure is not a conventional design, but a special structural limitation for achieving stable adsorption and turning, and it would have been not therefore non-obvious to arrive at the claimed invention over the cited references.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that a motivation for each modification made has been provided in at least the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and Applicant does not provide any argument as to why these motivations are non-obvious and therefore examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights