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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 March, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 32 recites “the third chamber” that should be “the at least third chamber. 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 15 recites “a fastening means”. These limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a positive-locking fastening , frictional fastening, plugging, clamping, or screwing, and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [Pg. 9, Lines 19-24] of the specification of the instant application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 31 recites “another workpiece” in lines 2 and 3. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intended for the limitation to be the same structure or different structures. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9-11, 15-16, 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walch (2004/0266320, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 1, Walch teaches A flow lapping device (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) for smoothing a surface of a workpiece (Ref. 20, Fig. 1, [0022]) by an abrasive fluid (Ref. 15, Fig. 1, [0022]), the flow lapping device comprising:
a holding device (Ref. 25 upper plate, Fig. 1) for holding the workpiece (20) and having a holding plate (Ref. 25, upper plate, Fig. 1) to which the workpiece is attached when the flow lapping device is in use (Fig. 1, [0022]);
an encasing device (Ref. 39, Fig 1) arranged around the holding device and within which the abrasive fluid can flow (Fig. 1, [0022&0025]), wherein the encasing device comprises a first chamber (See annotated Fig. 1 below) and a second chamber (See annotated Fig. 1 below), and wherein the holding plate is fixedly mounted within the encasing device (Fig. 1)and separates the first chamber and the second chamber (Fig. 1), the workpiece being located in the second chamber on one side of the holding device within the second chamber and not in the first chamber (Fig. 1 shows the workpiece above the holding plate in the second chamber on the bottom side of the holding device (25)), the workpiece thereby being mounted solely within the second chamber when the flow lapping device is in use (Fig. 1 shows the workpiece above the holding plate solely in the second chamber);
a channel formed in the holding plate (Fig. 1 shows an opening in the middle of the holding plate) and extending between and communicating with the first chamber and the second chamber (Fig. 1), the abrasive fluid flowing between the first chamber and the second chamber and further flowing in contact with the workpiece to cause smoothing of the workpiece ([0022]).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Walch teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the holding device is inserted into the encasing device (Fig. 1) and/or is clamped in the encasing device between the first chamber and the second chamber.
Regarding Claim 5, Walch teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the second chamber forms an annular jacket surrounding the workpiece (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Walch teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein mutually adjacent ends of the first chamber and second chamber abut one another (Fig. 1 above shows ends of the first and second chamber abut one another) or form a gap.
Regarding Claim 10, Walch teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein: a first closing device (Ref. 38, Fig. 1) is arranged at a first end of the first chamber (Fig. 1, top of first chamber, Ref. 37), wherein the first closing device comprises a first pressure piston (Ref. 38, Fig. 1, [0026]); and/or a second closing device is arranged at a second end of the second chamber, wherein the second closing device comprises a second pressure piston.
Regarding Claim 11, Walch teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a fluid guiding device (Ref. 25 bottom plate, Fig. 1) arranged within the encasing device to guide the abrasive fluid in a targeted manner about the workpiece (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Walch teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a fastening means (Ref. 25 bottom plate, Fig. 1) for fastening the workpiece to the holding device (Fig. 1, [0022]).
Regarding Claim 16, Walch teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the flow lapping device is formed in a multi-stage manner such that at least two holding devices are formed (Fig. 1 left and right holding devices), wherein the workpiece is arranged on each of the at least two holding devices (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 26, Walch teaches flow lapping device (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) for smoothing a surface of a workpiece (Ref. 20, Fig. 1, [0022]), the flow lapping device employing an abrasive fluid (Ref. 15, Fig. 1, [0022]) to cause smoothing ([0022]), the flow lapping device comprising:
a holding device (Ref. 25 bottom plate, Fig. 1) for holding the workpiece (20) and having a holding plate (Ref. 25, bottom plate, Fig. 1) to which the workpiece is attached when the flow lapping device is in use (Fig. 1, [0022]);
an encasing device (Ref. 39, Fig. 1) arranged around the holding device (Fig. 1) and within which the abrasive fluid can flow (Fig. 1, [0022&0025]), wherein the encasing device comprises a first chamber (Ref. 29, Fig. 1 lower portion below the holding plate) and a second chamber (Ref. 27, Fig. 1 upper portion above the holding plate), and wherein the holding plate (25, bottom plate) is fixedly mounted within the encasing device (Fig. 1) and separates the first chamber and the second chamber (Fig. 1), the workpiece (20) being located in the second chamber on one side of the holding device within the second chamber and not in the first chamber (Fig. 1 shows the workpiece above the holding plate in the second chamber on the top side of the holding device (25)), the workpiece thereby being mounted solely within the second chamber when the flow lapping device is in use (Fig. 1 shows the workpiece above the holding plate solely in the second chamber);
a channel formed in the holding plate (Fig. 1 shows an opening in the middle of the holding plate) and extending between and communicating with the first chamber and the second chamber (Fig. 1), the abrasive fluid flowing between the first chamber and the second chamber and further flowing in contact with the workpiece to cause smoothing of the workpiece ([0022]);
a first closing device (Ref. 58, Fig. 1) arranged at a first end of the first chamber (Fig. 1, bottom of first chamber, Ref. 57) and including a first pressure piston (Ref. 58, Fig. 1, [0026]) which extends into the first chamber (fig. 1);
a second closing device (Ref. 38, Fig. 1) arranged at a second end of the second chamber (Fig. 1, top of second chamber, Ref. 38) and including a second pressure piston (Ref. 37, [0025]) which extends into the second chamber (Fig. 1); and
an actuator (Ref. 61, Fig. 1, [0033]) attached to at least one of the first pressure piston or the second pressure piston (Fig. 1), the actuator moving the first pressure piston and/or the second pressure piston into or out of a respective chamber to move the abrasive fluid between the first chamber and the second chamber and to thereby cause movement of the abrasive fluid about the workpiece for smoothing ([0033]).
PNG
media_image2.png
518
491
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 30, Walch teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a third chamber (Fig. 1 annotated below, between first and second chambers) and a second holding plate (Ref. 25, upper plate, Fig. 1) fixedly mounted within the encasing device (Fig. 1) and separates the second chamber and the third chamber (fig. 1 annotated below),
a channel formed in the second holding plate (Fig. 1 shows an opening in the middle of the holding plate) and extending between and communicating with the second chamber and the third chamber (Fig. 1), the abrasive fluid flowing between the first chamber and the second chamber and the third chamber ([0022]), and wherein another workpiece is solely mounted on one side of the second holding plate within either the second chamber (Fig. 1 below shows the workpiece (20) mounted solely on the bottom side of the second holding place within the second chamber) or the third chamber, abrasive fluid further flowing in contact with each workpiece to cause smoothing of the workpiece (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
516
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tzeng (2010/0105298).
Regarding Claim 12, Walch teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches fluid guiding device (Ref. 25 bottom plate, Fig. 1) which is arranged inside the second chamber (Fig. 1) and that guides the second chamber in a direction of the holding device (Fig. 1). Walch fails to explicitly teach the first fluid guiding device having a shape that guides the abrasive fluid radially outwardly within the second chamber in a direction of the holding device. Tzeng teaches a polishing apparatus with an abrasive liquid and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Tzeng further teaches an abrasive fluid (Ref. 6, Fig. 2, an encasing device (Ref. 5, fig. 2) comprising a first chamber (bottom section Ref. 6, Fig. 2), a second chamber (Ref. 6, upper section Fig. 2), and a first fluid guiding device (Ref. 8, Fig. 2) having a shape that guides the abrasive fluid radially outwardly within the second chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fluid guiding device, as taught by Walch, with the shape that guides the abrasive fluid radially outwardly within the second chamber, as taught by Tzeng, to urge the abrasive fluid into the correct places for efficient movement of liquid ([0071]).
Regarding Claim 14, Walch teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the holding device has a plurality of channels therethrough each of which can be brought in alignment with a respective workpiece. Tzeng teaches a polishing apparatus with an abrasive liquid and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Tzeng further teaches wherein a holding device (Fig. 2, Ref. 3&4) has a plurality of channels (Ref. 31&41, Fig. 2) therethrough each of which can be brought in alignment with a respective workpiece (examiner notes that such a limitation is intended use and would be capable of aligning with a respective workpiece). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the holding device, as taught by Walch, with a plurality of channels, as taught by Tzeng, to urge the abrasive fluid into the correct places for efficient movement of liquid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 8, 13, 27-29, and 33 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 2, 6, 8, 13, and 27-29, See reasons for indication of allowable subject matter in Final Rejection filed on 16 December, 2025.
Regarding claim 33, Walch, the closest prior art of record, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but alone or in combination, does not teach suggest or make obvious the workpiece being located in the first chamber on one side of the first holding plate within the first chamber and not in the second chamber, the workpiece thereby being mounted solely within the first chamber when the flow lapping device is in use, the another workpiece being located in the second chamber on one side of the second holding plate within the second chamber and not in the first chamber, the second workpiece thereby being mounted solely within the second chamber when the flow lapping device is in use, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the additional elements of the claims. Further, examiner notes it would have been impermissible hindsight to teach another being located in the second chamber on one side of the second holding plate within the second chamber and not in the first chamber, the second workpiece thereby being mounted solely within the second chamber when the flow lapping device is in use, as particularly required by the claim, as it would destroy the best prior art of Walch.
Claim 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 31, Walch, the closest prior art of record, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and a second holding plate being located solely within the first chamber, but alone or in combination, does not teach suggest or make obvious the second holding plate to which another workpiece is attached, the another workpiece thereby being solely within the first chamber and not in the second chamber, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the additional elements of the claims. Further, examiner notes it would have been impermissible hindsight to teach another workpiece is solely in the first chamber, as particularly required by the claim as it would destroy the best prior art of Walch.
Claim 32 is allowed if rewritten to overcome the Claim Objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 32, Walch, the closest prior art of record, discloses a flow lapping device comprising a first holding device, a second holding device, an encasing device, a first, second, and third chamber, and a channel but alone or in combination, does not teach suggest or make obvious the workpiece being located in the first chamber on one side of the first holding plate within the first chamber and not in the second chamber, the workpiece thereby being mounted solely within the first chamber when the flow lapping device is in use, the another workpiece being located in the second chamber on one side of the second holding plate within the second chamber and not in the first chamber, the second workpiece thereby being mounted solely within the second chamber when the flow lapping device is in use, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the additional elements of the claims. Further, examiner notes it would have been impermissible hindsight to teach another being located in the second chamber on one side of the second holding plate within the second chamber and not in the first chamber, the second workpiece thereby being mounted solely within the second chamber when the flow lapping device is in use, as particularly required by the claim, as it would destroy the best prior art of Walch.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in regards to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner withdraws the drawing objections.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regrading Claims 1 and 26, applicant has amended the claim thereby changing the scope of the claim necessitating a new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s arguments that Walch fails to teach the holding plate separates first and second chambers with the workpiece located in the second chamber has been fully considered and is not persuasive has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Walch teaches respective first and second chambers (see annotated figures above) and the workpiece being located in the second chamber on one side of the holding device within the second chamber and not in the first chamber (Fig. 1 shows the workpiece above the holding plate in the second chamber on a side of the holding device (25)), the workpiece thereby being mounted solely within the second chamber when the flow lapping device is in use (Fig. 1 shows the workpiece above the holding plate solely in the second chamber). Examiner notes the term separates is being interpreted as a distinction or boundary, if applicant intends for the first and second chambers to be separate elements with the holding plates between each chamber such a limitation is not required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kenda (2016/0082565) and Wilson (2015/0097746) teach flow lapping devices for smoothing a surface of a workpiece using an abrasive fluid and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights