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 Objections
In claims 5, and 7, consider, to clarify certain aspects of the method:
--a first running of causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in a first direction; and
a second running of causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in a second direction opposite to the first direction, the first running and the second running being repeated,
wherein the first running includes a first acceleration running of increasing a running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire [[in]] from a stopped state to the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction,
a first regular running of maintaining the running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire at the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction, and
a first deceleration running of decreasing the running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire from the maximum speed to the stopped state while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction, and
wherein the second running includes a second acceleration running of increasing [[a]] the running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire [[in a]] from the stopped state to the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction,
a second regular running of maintaining the running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire at the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction, and
a second deceleration running of decreasing the running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire from the maximum speed to the stopped state while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction--.
In claims 6 and 8, consider -- wherein a duration of the first regular running is longer than a duration of the second regular running--.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (US 20210016413 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kitagawa discloses: A method for cutting a silicon ingot, the method comprising: cutting a silicon ingot by causing a fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run at a speed ([0037] provides for a fixed abrasive grain wire, which is used to cut a workpiece, which, in terms of background, is a silicon ingot as in [0002], and the fixed abrasive is run at up to 1500 m/min as in table 2, page 4, wire traveling rate), while supplying a coolant in which a percentage of water is more than 99% ([0053], coolant for slicing, percentage water by mass preferably 99% or more during slicing). As for the limitation that the speed is in which a maximum speed is 1,200 m/minute or higher, MPEP 2144.05 provides that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results. Here, Kitagawa provides for a range of up to 1,500 m/min, i.e. anywhere from 0-1,500 m/min, while the claimed range in claim 1 is from 1,200 m/min with no upper bound, therefore the ranges overlap at 1,200-1,500 m/min. Additionally, the applicant did not demonstrate criticality of the claimed range, or a new and unexpected result of a difference in kind, rather than in degree, as the results shown in instant table 1 and instant [0034] do not provide for sufficient data points to show unexpected results over the entire range, and appear at most to show a difference in degree. See MPEP 716.02
Therefore, the claimed limitation of the in which a maximum speed is 1,200 m/minute or higher would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as the claimed maximum speed range overlaps with that of the prior art.
With respect to claim 2, Kitagawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: wherein the maximum speed of the fixed-abrasive-grain wire is 2,000 m/minute or lower (Kitagawa discloses a maximum speed of 1,500 m/min as in table 2, and previously explained with respect to the rejection of claim 1, and this claimed limitation provides for a range of 1,200-2,000 m/min, which overlaps the range of 0-1,500 m/min disclosed by Kitagawa, and is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons explained in the rejection of claim 1 above of a overlapping range, and because the applicant did not demonstrate unexpected results over the entire range with sufficient data to show a difference in kind rather than in degree).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (US 20210016413 A1) and further in view of Eto (JP 2017220546 A).
With respect to claim 3, Kitagawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein a position at which the coolant is supplied to the fixed-abrasive-grain wire is a position at which a distance from the silicon ingot is 60 mm or more.
Eto, in the same field of endeavor, related to slicing of silicon ingots ([0002]), teaches of supplying coolant to the fixed-abrasive-grain wire is a position at which a distance from the silicon ingot is 60 mm or more (distance D, fig. 2, relative to workpiece W, [0018], at a specific distance in the working example shown in fig. 5C, where at the start of machining the distance is 80 mm [then changing to 30 mm at the middle, and 100 mm at the end], [0047]). Eto teaches that this specific positioning increases machining quality while reducing splashing of coolant ([0013-0015]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have wherein a position at which the coolant is supplied to the fixed-abrasive-grain wire is a position at which a distance from the silicon ingot is 60 mm or more, as taught by Eto, for the purpose of increasing machining quality while reducing splashing.
With respect to claim 4, Kitagawa teaches the limitations of claim 3 above, and further teaches wherein the position at which the coolant is supplied to the fixed-abrasive-grain wire is a position at which the distance from the silicon ingot is 120 mm or less (Eto, provides for a specific distance of 80 mm at the beginning of machining).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (US 20210016413 A1) and further in view of Fukouka (JP 2010105061 A).
With respect to claim 5, Kitagawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach a first running of causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in a first direction; and a second running of causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in a second direction opposite to the first direction, the first running and the second running being repeated, wherein the first running includes a first acceleration running of increasing a running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire in a stopped state to the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction, a first regular running of maintaining the running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire at the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction, and a first deceleration running of decreasing the maximum speed to a running speed of the fixed-abrasive-grain wire in a stopped state while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction, and wherein the second running includes a second acceleration running of increasing a running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire in a stopped state to the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction, a second regular running of maintaining the running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire at the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction, and a second deceleration running of decreasing the maximum speed to a running speed of the fixed-abrasive-grain wire in a stopped state while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction.
Fukouka, in the same field of endeavor, related to abrasive wire cutting, teaches of a fixed abrasive running operation ([0001]), including a first running of causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in a first direction (first running is areas a, b, and c, fig. 3, [0021], examiner notes that the reference characters in [0021] are incorrect however describes the graph with acceleration, steady running and deceleration); and a second running of causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in a second direction opposite to the first direction (areas d, e, and f, fig. 3, [0022]), the first running and the second running being repeated ([0017-0018,0022]), wherein the first running includes a first acceleration running of increasing a running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire in a stopped state to the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction (area a, fig. 3, [0021], from a stopped state with v=0), a first regular running of maintaining the running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire at the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction (area, b, fig. 3, [0021], running at maximum speed]), and a first deceleration running of decreasing the maximum speed to a running speed of the fixed-abrasive-grain wire in a stopped state while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction (area c, fig. 3, [0021], decelerate to 0 before reversing in [0022]), and wherein the second running includes a second acceleration running of increasing a running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire in a stopped state to the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction (area d, fig. 3, [0022]), a second regular running of maintaining the running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire at the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction (area e, fig. 3, [0022]), and a second deceleration running of decreasing the maximum speed to a running speed of the fixed-abrasive-grain wire in a stopped state while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction (area f, fig. 3, [0022]). Fukouka teaches that this allows for a constant speed time (tb) in forward movement longer than a constant speed time (te) in backward movement while having the same maximum speed ([0023]), which stabilizes or improves cutting accuracy though an increase in tension with fast acceleration ([0024-0025]; [0005-0006] also provides for a further explanation of the improvement).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kitagawa with the running operation of Fukouka, including reversal with acceleration and deceleration, for the purpose in increased or stabilized cutting accuracy.
With respect to claim 6, Kitagawa teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein duration of the first regular running is longer than duration of the second regular running (Fukouka, [0023], provides that the first duration (tb) is longer than the second duration (te) in backward movement)
With respect to claim 7, Kitagawa teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, however does not explicitly teach a first running of causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in a first direction; and a second running of causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in a second direction opposite to the first direction, the first running and the second running being repeated, wherein the first running includes a first acceleration running of increasing a running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire in a stopped state to the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction, a first regular running of maintaining the running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire at the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction, and a first deceleration running of decreasing the maximum speed to a running speed of the fixed-abrasive-grain wire in a stopped state while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction, and wherein the second running includes a second acceleration running of increasing a running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire in a stopped state to the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction, a second regular running of maintaining the running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire at the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction, and a second deceleration running of decreasing the maximum speed to a running speed of the fixed-abrasive-grain wire in a stopped state while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction.
Fukouka, in the same field of endeavor, related to abrasive wire cutting, teaches of a fixed abrasive running operation ([0001]), including a first running of causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in a first direction (first running is areas a, b, and c, fig. 3, [0021], examiner notes that the reference characters in [0021] are incorrect however describes the graph with acceleration, steady running and deceleration); and a second running of causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in a second direction opposite to the first direction (areas d, e, and f, fig. 3, [0022]), the first running and the second running being repeated ([0017-0018,0022]), wherein the first running includes a first acceleration running of increasing a running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire in a stopped state to the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction (area a, fig. 3, [0021], from a stopped state with v=0), a first regular running of maintaining the running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire at the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction (area, b, fig. 3, [0021], running at maximum speed]), and a first deceleration running of decreasing the maximum speed to a running speed of the fixed-abrasive-grain wire in a stopped state while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the first direction (area c, fig. 3, [0021], decelerate to 0 before reversing in [0022]), and wherein the second running includes a second acceleration running of increasing a running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire in a stopped state to the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction (area d, fig. 3, [0022]), a second regular running of maintaining the running speed of the fixed-abrasive- grain wire at the maximum speed while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction (area e, fig. 3, [0022]), and a second deceleration running of decreasing the maximum speed to a running speed of the fixed-abrasive-grain wire in a stopped state while causing the fixed-abrasive-grain wire to run in the second direction (area f, fig. 3, [0022]). Fukouka teaches that this allows for a constant speed time (tb) in forward movement longer than a constant speed time (te) in backward movement while having the same maximum speed ([0023]), which stabilizes or improves cutting accuracy though an increase in tension with fast acceleration ([0024-0025]; [0005-0006] also provides for a further explanation of the improvement).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kitagawa with the running operation of Fukouka, including reversal with acceleration and deceleration, for the purpose in increased or stabilized cutting accuracy.
With respect to claim 8, Kitagawa teaches the limitations of claim 7 above, and further teaches wherein duration of the first regular running is longer than duration of the second regular running (Fukouka, [0023], provides that the first duration (tb) is longer than the second duration (te) in backward movement)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights