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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first chamber” and “second chamber” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walch (2004/0266320).
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 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 is fixedly mounted within the encasing device and separates the first chamber and the second chamber (Fig. 1), the workpiece being located in the second chamber when the flow lapping device is in use (Fig. 1 shows the workpiece above the holding plate);
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]).
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 the second chamber abut one another (Fig. 1) or form a gap.
Regarding Claim 10, Walch teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a first closing device (Ref. 57, Fig. 1) is arranged at a first end of the first chamber (Fig. 1, bottom of first chamber), wherein the first closing device comprises a first pressure piston (Ref. 57, Fig. 1, [0026]); and/or
a second closing device (Ref. 37, Fig. 1) is arranged at a second end of the second chamber (Fig. 1, top of second chamber), wherein the second closing device comprises a second pressure piston (Ref. 37, [0025]).
Regarding Claim 11, Walch teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a fluid guiding device (Ref. 25 top 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 top 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 a 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, the flow lapping device comprising:
a holding device (Ref. 25 bottom plate, Fig. 1) for holding the workpiece 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 is fixedly mounted within the encasing device and separates the first chamber and the second chamber (Fig. 1), the workpiece being located in the second chamber when the flow lapping device is in use (Fig. 1 shows the workpiece above the holding plate);
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. 57, Fig. 1) arranged at a first end of the first chamber (Fig. 1, bottom of first chamber) and including a first pressure piston (Ref. 57, Fig. 1, [0026]) which extends into the first chamber (Fig. 1);
a second closing device (Ref. 37, Fig. 1) arranged at a second end of the second chamber (Fig. 1, top of second chamber) 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]).
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 a first fluid guiding device (Ref. 25 top plate, Fig. 1) which is arranged inside the second chamber (fig. 1 above the holding device (25 bottom plate)) 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, and 27-29 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 Claim 2 and 27, Walch (above) and Kenda (2016/0082565) the closest prior arts of record, teach some of the limitations of claim s, but alone or in combination fail to teach, suggest, or make obvious the combination of recited features of claims.
Walch, one of 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 wherein the first chamber has a first circumferential shoulder formed around an interior sidewall edge of the first chamber, the first circumferential shoulder sized to receive a top circumferential edge of the holding plate seated therein, wherein the second chamber has a second circumferential shoulder formed around an interior sidewall edge of the second chamber, the second circumferential shoulder sized to receive a bottom circumferential edge of the holding plate seated therein and wherein the holding plate is sealingly nested between the first circumferential shoulder and the second circumferential shoulder to fix the holding plate when the flow lapping device is in use, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Kenda, one of the closest prior art of record, discloses a flow lapping device using an abrasive fluid with two pistons and an encasing device but alone or in combination, does not teach suggest or make obvious wherein the first chamber has a first circumferential shoulder formed around an interior sidewall edge of the first chamber, the first circumferential shoulder sized to receive a top circumferential edge of the holding plate seated therein, wherein the second chamber has a second circumferential shoulder formed around an interior sidewall edge of the second chamber, the second circumferential shoulder sized to receive a bottom circumferential edge of the holding plate seated therein and wherein the holding plate is sealingly nested between the first circumferential shoulder and the second circumferential shoulder to fix the holding plate when the flow lapping device is in use, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Regarding claim 8, 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 wherein mutually adjacent ends of the first chamber and the second chamber form a groove-shaped receiving space for receiving a circumferential edge of the holding device, wherein both of the mutually adjacent ends have a step or a projection, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Regarding claim 13, Regarding claim 8, Walch, the closest prior art of record, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 12, as described above, but alone or in combination, does not teach suggest or make obvious a second fluid guiding device arranged inside the first chamber, wherein the second fluid guiding device has a frustoconical shape that guides the abrasive fluid in from an apex aligned with the channel, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Claims 6 and 28-29 are allowed due to being dependent on an allowed claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 17 and 18 are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(d) rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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 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
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723