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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Invention I (claims 1-6) is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the Requirement for Restriction, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. MPEP § 818.01(a). Applicant has canceled claims 7-10. Claims 1-6 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 06/23/2025 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“rotates along a first rotational axis” (claim 1, lines 4-5) should be changed to --rotates about a first rotational axis--;
“rotates along a second rotational axis” (claim 1, line 5) should be changed to --rotates about a second rotational axis--;
“rotates along the first rotational axis” (claim 1, line 7) should be changed to --rotates about the first rotational axis--;
“rotates along the second rotational axis” (claim 1, line 8) should be changed to --rotates about the second rotational axis--;
“rotates along a third rotational axis” (claim 1, line 12) should be changed to --rotates about a third rotational axis--;
“rotates along the first rotational axis” (claim 1, lines 12-13) should be changed to --rotates about the first rotational axis--;
“according claim 2” (claim 4, line 1) should be changed to --according to claim 2--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Nobs
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240149382 A1 (“Nobs”).
Nobs pertains to a grinding apparatus and method for a boule (Figs. 1A-32; ¶¶ 0003-0009, 0055-0056) and is in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Nobs discloses a processing method for a boule (Figs. 1A-32; ¶¶ 0003-0009, 0055-0056, method for grinding a boule 20 in a machine 100), comprising:
moving the boule to a first processing station of a grinding equipment, and utilizing a first grinding wheel located within the first processing station to perform a sidewall grinding process on a sidewall of the boule (Figs. 8-11, 21-24; ¶¶ 0099-0102, boule 20 held by holder 10 and is moved to a first processing station (from the station/position of Figs. 8 and 9 to the first processing station/position of Figs. 10 and 11) of machine 100, where the first grinding wheel 14 located at the first processing station/position grinds the circumferential sidewall 46 of boule 20),
wherein during the sidewall grinding process, the boule rotates [about] a first rotational axis, and the first grinding wheel rotates [about] a second rotational axis, wherein the first rotational axis is parallel to the second rotational axis, and a direction in which the boule rotates [about] the first rotational axis is equal to a direction in which the first grinding wheel rotates [about] the second rotational axis (Figs. 8-11, 21-24; ¶¶ 0099-0102, 0077-0083, during the sidewall grinding process, boule 20 rotates in a direction about first axis of boule rotation (axis B-B in Fig. 11 (see Fig. 10, in the x-axis direction)) and the first grinding wheel 14 rotates in the same direction about second axis C-C, where first axis of boule rotation is parallel to second axis C-C (¶ 0102, “In an embodiment, the first grinding wheel 14 is rotated about an axis C-C that is parallel to the axis B-B.”, referring to Figs. 21-24 that show a variation of Figs. 8-11 where the first grinding wheel 14 is a cylindrical disk where it’s axis is arranged parallel to the axis of the boule 20 (¶¶ 0043-0046, 0077-0083)); also note that the boule 20 and first grinding wheel 14 (see Fig. 11) could rotate either clockwise or counterclockwise and could both rotate in the same or opposite directions (¶ 0083); further note the orientation of the x, y, and z axes in Fig. 10 (Fig. 11 is presumed to have the same orientation));
and utilizing a second grinding wheel…to perform a top surface grinding process on a top surface of the boule (Fig. 15A; ¶¶ 0107-0108, 0082, boule 20 held by holder 10, has the top surface 44 ground by a second grinding wheel 16; note the orientation of the x, y, and z axes in Fig. 15A, where the top surface 44 is perpendicular to the x-axis in both Figs. 11 (see Fig. 10) and 15A),
wherein during the top surface grinding process, the second grinding wheel rotates [about] a third rotational axis…wherein the third rotational axis is perpendicular to the first rotational axis (Fig. 15A; ¶¶ 0107-0108, 0082, during the top surface grinding process, the second grinding wheel 16 rotates about a third axis (axis near reference 20 in Fig. 15A is in the y-axis direction) that is perpendicular to the first axis of boule rotation (axis B-B in Fig. 11 (see Fig. 10, in the x-axis direction)); further note the orientation of the x, y, and z axes in Fig. 15A).
In the main embodiment of Nobs (Figs. 8-11 (using the parallel first grinding wheel per Fig. 21) and 15A), Nobs does not explicitly disclose:
and moving the boule to a second processing station of the grinding equipment, and utilizing a second grinding wheel located within the second processing station to perform a top surface grinding process on a top surface of the boule,
wherein during the top surface grinding process, the second grinding wheel rotates [about] a third rotational axis, and the boule rotates [about] the first rotational axis, wherein the third rotational axis is perpendicular to the first rotational axis.
However, Nobs makes obvious this claim.
Nobs discloses wherein during the top surface grinding process, the second grinding wheel rotates [about] a third rotational axis, and the boule rotates [about] the first rotational axis, wherein the third rotational axis is perpendicular to the first rotational axis (Fig. 12A; ¶¶ 0083, 0103, in a top surface 44 grinding process, boule 20 rotates about the first axis of boule rotation (shown as axis A-A in Fig. 12A), and grinding wheel 14 rotates about third axis C-C, which is perpendicular to the first axis A-A of boule rotation; note that the grinding wheel 14 of Fig. 12A could be arranged perpendicularly to the first axis of boule rotation (shown as axis A-A in Fig. 12A) (¶ 0103; also see Fig. 22)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of different embodiments and sub-embodiments of Nobs to modify the process step of Nobs Fig. 15A such that the boule 20 rotates about its first axis of rotation while it is being ground by the second grinding wheel. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the Nobs reference describes various embodiments and modifications to embodiments, including modifications to the movement and rotation of boule 20 during a grinding step where a grinding wheel is also rotating (Nobs ¶¶ 0072, 0078, 0083, 0103, 0164). The proposed modification would have been obvious to try because Nobs explicitly states, “it should be appreciated that all the different permutations, orientations, and arrangements can be interchanged with one another. Thus, this disclosure should not only be considered to disclose various different embodiments, but it should also be appreciated that the various embodiments describing different components and configurations can be exchanged with others” (Nobs ¶ 0078); The proposed modification would result in a similar and predictable (and likely faster) grinding result, where the rotation of the boule 20 during the top surface grinding process would result in the entire top surface 44 being ground without having to move the second grinding wheel 16 transversely in two axes relative to the boule 20 (e.g., the rotation of boule 20 would only require the second grinding wheel 16 of Fig. 15A to move in the arrow 2 direction to complete the top surface grinding process).
Further, regarding the limitations “first processing station”, “second processing station”, and “moving the boule to a second processing station of the grinding equipment, and utilizing a second grinding wheel located within the second processing station to perform a top surface grinding process on a top surface of the boule”, assuming that this requires two physically different stations or machinery for the boule to physically move between them as recited, Nobs nevertheless makes obvious this claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to use more than one instance of the modified machine 100, where a first machine (“the first processing station”) performs only the sidewall grinding process involving the first grinding wheel 14 and the sidewall 46 of boule 20, and where a second machine (“the second processing station”) performs only the top surface grinding process involving the second grinding wheel 16 and the top surface 44 of boule 20, where the boule is moved (e.g., by a human operator) from the first machine to the second machine. For example, this segregation of these two grinding steps to two separate machines may reduce the cost of machine 100, eliminating the need for two grinding wheels within the machine, especially when one of the two grinding steps is not needed in other related grinding processes. Applicant states no novel or unexpected result due to having multiple and separate physical (“first” and “second”) processing stations. See, e.g., In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961) (“If it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of Peterson’s holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”); MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C); see also In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 2, Nobs makes obvious the processing method of claim 1 as applied above. Nobs further discloses after performing the sidewall grinding process and before performing the top surface grinding process, an X-ray instrument is utilized to perform a crystal plane measurement procedure on the boule, and a processing region on the sidewall of the boule is obtained (Fig. 13; ¶¶ 0086-0088, 0103-0106, 0110, 0137-0138, 0155-0157, after the sidewall grinding process but before the top surface grinding process, x-ray instrument 28 is used to measure the crystal structure and orientation (“crystal plane measurement procedure”) on boule 20 to identify a “processing region” for a flat portion or a notch to indicate the crystal orientation).
Regarding claim 3, Nobs makes obvious the processing method of claim 2 as applied above. Nobs further discloses after performing the sidewall grinding process, the first grinding wheel is utilized to form a flat on the processing region (Figs. 13, 17A-D; ¶¶ 0086-0088, 0103-0106, 0110, 0137-0138, 0155-0157, after the sidewall grinding process but before the top surface grinding process, x-ray instrument 28 is used to measure the crystal structure and orientation (“crystal plane measurement procedure”) on boule 20 to identify a “processing region” for a flat portion or a notch to indicate the crystal orientation, and the first grinding wheel 14 (see Figs. 17A-C; ¶¶ 0110, 0155-0156) is used to form a flat in the “processing region”).
To the extent Nobs does not explicitly disclose that the first grinding wheel is utilized to form a flat on the processing region, this would have been obvious in light of the citations above, and for the same obviousness rationale as claim 1 where combining the teachings of different embodiments and sub-embodiments of Nobs would have been obvious to try (i.e., using the first grinding wheel 14 (instead of a different grinding wheel) to form the flat).
Regarding claim 4, Nobs makes obvious the processing method of claim 2 as applied above. Nobs further discloses after performing the sidewall grinding process, the…grinding wheel is utilized to form a V-shaped notch on the processing region (Figs. 13, 17A-D; ¶¶ 0086-0088, 0103-0106, 0110, 0137-0138, 0155-0157, after the sidewall grinding process but before the top surface grinding process, x-ray instrument 28 is used to measure the crystal structure and orientation (“crystal plane measurement procedure”) on boule 20 to identify a “processing region” for a flat portion or a notch to indicate the crystal orientation, and a grinding wheel 16a (see Figs. 17A-C; ¶¶ 0110, 0155-0156) is used to form a V-shaped notch in the “processing region”).
Nobs does not explicitly disclose the second grinding wheel is utilized to form a V-shaped notch on the processing region. However, Nobs makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of different embodiments and sub-embodiments of Nobs to use grinding wheel 16a (of Fig. 17D) as the second grinding wheel of Fig. 15A, whereby the top surface grinding process and the formation of the V-shaped notch are performed by the same grinding wheel 16a. The obviousness rationale is similar to that for claim 1, where combining the teachings of different embodiments and sub-embodiments of Nobs would have been obvious to try, where this proposed modification would result in a similar and predictable grinding result, where using the same second grinding wheel 16a for these two steps may save processing time by eliminating a tool change step (i.e., tool changing from grinding wheel 16 to grinding wheel 16a (see ¶ 0156, referring to a tool changing system 60))).
Regarding claim 5, Nobs makes obvious the processing method of claim 1 as applied above. Nobs further discloses wherein during the sidewall grinding process, the first grinding wheel moves along a z-axis, and the boule moves toward the first grinding wheel along an x-axis and/or a y-axis perpendicular to the z-axis, wherein the z-axis is parallel to the first rotational axis and the second rotational axis, and the third rotational axis is parallel to the y-axis (Figs. 8-11, 15A; ¶¶ 0077, 0102, 0107-0108, during the sidewall grinding process, first grinding wheel 14 is capable of moving along a “z-axis” (arrow 9 in Fig. 11, in the x-axis direction of Figs. 10-11) that is parallel to the first rotational axis (axis B-B in Fig. 11) and the second rotational axis (parallel variation of axis C-C (see Fig. 21)), and the boule 20 is capable of relatively moving towards the first grinding wheel along a “x-axis” (arrow 2 in Fig. 11, in the z-axis direction of Figs. 10-11) that is perpendicular to the “z-axis”, where the third rotational axis of the second grinding wheel (Figs. 15A) is parallel to the “y-axis” (y-axis as shown in Fig. 15A); Examiner notes that the x, y, and z axes in this limitation are not defined as to any frame of reference nor defined as orthogonal to each other).
Regarding claim 6, Nobs makes obvious the processing method of claim 1 as applied above. Nobs further discloses wherein during the top surface grinding process, the second grinding wheel moves toward the boule along a z-axis, and the boule moves along an x-axis and/or a y-axis perpendicular to the z-axis, wherein the z-axis is parallel to the first rotational axis and the second rotational axis, and the third rotational axis is parallel to the y-axis (Figs. 8-11, 15A; ¶¶ 0077, 0102, 0107-0108, during the top surface grinding process, second grinding wheel 16 is capable of moving towards boule 20 along a “z-axis” (arrow 2 in Fig. 15A, in the x-axis direction of Fig. 15A), and the boule 20 is capable of relatively moving along a “x-axis” (arrow 2 in Fig. 15A, in the z-axis direction of Fig. 15A) that is perpendicular to the “z-axis”, where the “z-axis” is parallel to the first rotational axis (axis B-B in Fig. 11) and the second rotational axis (parallel variation of axis C-C (see Fig. 21), where the third rotational axis of the second grinding wheel (Figs. 15A) is parallel to the “y-axis” (y-axis as shown in Fig. 15A); Examiner notes that the x, y, and z axes in this limitation are not defined as to any frame of reference nor defined as orthogonal to each other).
Status of Claims
Claims 7-10 have been canceled. Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to grinding apparatus similar to Applicant’s disclosure, including ones that perform grinding operations on silicon ingots and other cylindrical workpieces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/ Date: October 10, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights