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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7, and 8 have been amended. Claim 9 has been canceled. Claims 10 and 11 have been added. Claims 1-8, 10, and 11 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 01/18/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections, are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-13, filed 01/18/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the claims have been amended and the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 plane and … second plane” of claim 10;
“gap extends the entire distance between opposing ends of said first column and said second column.” of claim 11,
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites: “the first rear surface forms a first plane and the second rear surface forms a second plane, the first plane and the second plane being parallel and separated by said gap.”. Nowhere in the specification nor the drawings disclose/show a first and second plane. Therefore, it’s new matter.
Claim 11 recites: “said gap extends the entire distance between opposing ends of said first column and said second column.”. Nowhere in the specification nor the drawings explicitly prove the gap extends the entire distance between the columns. The top down view in figures 2 and 3 and figure 1’s isometric view is not sufficient support for the claim’s specificity. Therefore, it’s new matter.
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 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoda (JP 2019155525 A) and Okada (US 20170242346 A1).
Referring to claim 1: Shimoda teaches a processing device (1 Fig. 1) that performs rough grinding, medium grinding and fine grinding on a work in order [0023], the processing device comprising: an index table (21 Fig. 1) that includes a plurality of chucks (22 Fig. 1) for adsorbing and holding the work [0022, 0024], and transports [0024] the work in order of a rough grinding stage [0023] provided with a rough grinding means (4 Fig. 2; [0028]) for rough grinding the work,
a medium grinding stage [0023] provided with a medium grinding means (5 Fig. 2; [0028]) for medium grinding the work, and a fine grinding stage [0023] provided with a fine grinding means (6 Fig. 2; [0028]) for fine grinding the work;
a first column (32 Figs. 1 and 2) provided to extend over the index table (21 Fig. 1) and in which one of the rough grinding means (4 Fig. 2; [0028]) or the fine grinding means is installed;
said first column (32 Figs. 1 and 2) having a first rear surface (32-R Fig. 1-A inserted below);
a second column (3 Figs. 1 and 2) provided to extend over the index table (21 Fig. 1) independent apart (shown independent apart in Fig. 1-A inserted below) from the first column (32 Figs. 1 and 2) separately, and in which the medium grinding means (5 Fig. 2; [0028]) is installed and the other one of the rough grinding means or the fine grinding means (6 Fig. 2; [0028]) is arranged parallel (shown parallel in Figs. 1 and 2) to the medium grinding means,
said second column (3 Figs. 1 and 2) having a second rear surface (3-R Fig. 1-A inserted below);
the first column (32 Figs. 1 and 2) and the second column (3 Figs. 1 and 2) are provided back- to-back (shown in Fig. 1-A inserted below);
the first rear surface (32-R Fig. 1-A inserted below) of the first column and the second rear surface (3-R Fig. 1-A inserted below)of the second column placed opposite each other (shown in Fig. 1-A inserted below).
But is silent on the second column specifically provided with a gap independent apart from the first column separately and the gap separating the first rear surface of the first column from the second rear surface of the second column.
Okada in an analogous processing device (300 Fig. 3) teaches wherein the
similar configuration second column (10c Fig. 2-A inserted below) specifically provided with a gap (G Fig. 2-A inserted below) independent apart from the similar configuration first column (10a Fig. 2-A inserted below) separately
and the gap (G Fig. 2-A inserted below) separating the similar configuration first rear surface (10a-R Fig. 2-A inserted below) of the first column from the similar configuration second rear surface (10c-R Fig. 2-A inserted below) of the second column.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second columns of Shimoda with the gap as taught by Okada for the purpose of monitoring and mitigating vibrations between the columns [0063 of Okada].
PNG
media_image1.png
684
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 2: Shimoda as modified teaches the processing device according to claim 1,wherein the rough grinding means (4 Fig. 2; [0028]) is provided on the first column (32 Figs. 1 and 2); the fine grinding means (6 Fig. 2; [0028]) is provided on the second column (3 Figs. 1 and 2): and the work is subjected to fine grinding in a state where the index table (21 Fig. 1) is displaced substantially equally (shown displaced substantially equally in Figs. 1 and 2) in the fine grinding stage.
Referring to claim 4: Shimoda as modified teaches the processing device according to claim 1, wherein the index table is configured to be rotatable in a clockwise direction [0021] and a counterclockwise direction when viewed in a plane (when the processing device is viewed from below or opposite perspective plane, it will rotate in the opposite direction).
Referring to claim 5: Shimoda as modified teaches the processing device according to claim 2, wherein the index table is configured to be rotatable in a clockwise direction [0021] and a counterclockwise direction when viewed in a plane (when the processing device is viewed from below or opposite perspective plane, it will rotate in the opposite direction).
Claims 3, 6-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoda (JP 2019155525 A), Okada (US 20170242346 A1), and Kanazawa (WO 2017094646 A1).
Referring to claim 3: Shimoda as modified teaches the processing device according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the fine grinding means is specifically provided on the first column; the rough grinding means is specifically provided on the second column; and the work is subjected to fine grinding in a state where propagated vibration from the medium grinding means to the fine grinding means is reduced.
Kanazawa in an analogous processing device teaches the work is subjected to fine grinding in a state where propagated vibration [0015] from the medium grinding means to the fine grinding means is reduced.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing device of Shimoda as modified with the vibration reduction as taught by Kanazawa for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, reducing vibrations to increase the accuracy of the desired effect.
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fine grinding means and rough grinding means specifically provided on the first column and second column, respectively for the purpose of having an alternate configuration for accomplishing the same process, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Referring to claim 6: Shimoda as modified teaches the processing device according to claim 3, wherein the index table is configured to be rotatable in a clockwise direction [0021 of Shimoda] and a counterclockwise direction when viewed in a plane (when the processing device is viewed from below or opposite perspective plane, it will rotate in the opposite direction of Shimoda).
Referring to claim 7: Shimoda teaches a processing device (1 Fig. 1) that performs rough grinding, medium grinding and fine grinding on a
work in order [0023]; the processing device comprising: an index table (21 Fig. 1) that includes a plurality of chucks (22 Fig. 1) for adsorbing and holding the work [0022, 0024], and transports [0024] the work in order of a rough grinding stage [0023] provided with a rough grinding stone (41 ;[0072]), a medium grinding stage [0023] provided with a medium grinding stone (51 ;[0072]), and a fine grinding stage [0023] provided with a fine grinding stone (61 ;[0072]);
a first column (32 Figs. 1 and 2) provided to extend over the index table (21 Fig. 1) and in which one of the rough grinding stone (4/41 Fig. 2; [0028]) or the fine grinding stone is installed,
said first column (32 Figs. 1 and 2) having a first rear surface (32-R Fig. 1-A inserted above);
a second column (3 Figs. 1 and 2) provided to extend over the index table (21 Fig. 1) and independent apart (shown independent apart in Fig. 1-A inserted below) from the first column (32 Figs. 1 and 2) separately, and in which the medium grinding stone (5/ 51 Fig. 2; [0028]) is installed and the other one of the rough grinding stone or the fine grinding stone (6/ 61 Fig. 2; [0028]) is arranged parallel (shown parallel in Figs. 1 and 2) to the medium grinding stone,
said second column (3 Figs. 1 and 2) having a second rear surface (3-R Fig. 1-A inserted above); said first column (32 Figs. 1 and 2) and said second column (3 Figs. 1 and 2) placed adjacent each other (shown adjacent in Fig. 1-A inserted above) and back-to-back (shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above);
the first rear surface (32-R Fig. 1-A inserted above) and the second rear surface (3-R Fig. 1-A inserted above) are placed opposite each other (shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above).
But is silent on wherein vibration is prevented from propagating from the second column to the one of the rough grinding stone and the fine grinding stone installed on the first column;
a second column specifically provided to extend over the index table and provided with a gap independent apart from the first column separately and the gap separating the first rear surface from the second rear surface.
Kanazawa in an analogous processing device teaches wherein vibration is prevented from propagating [0015] from the second column to the one of the similar configuration rough grinding stone and the similar configuration fine grinding stone installed on the first column.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing device of Shimoda with the vibration reduction as taught by Kanazawa for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, reducing vibrations to increase the accuracy of the desired effect.
Okada in an analogous processing device (300 Fig. 3) teaches wherein the
similar configuration second column (10c Fig. 2-A inserted above) specifically provided with a gap (G Fig. 2-A inserted above) independent apart from the similar configuration first column (10a Fig. 2-A inserted above) separately
and the gap (G Fig. 2-A inserted above) separating the similar configuration first rear surface (10a-R Fig. 2-A inserted above) from the similar configuration second rear surface (10c-R Fig. 2-A inserted above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second columns of Shimoda with the gap as taught by Okada for the purpose of monitoring and mitigating vibrations between the columns [0063 of Okada].
Referring to claim 8: Shimoda teaches a processing device (1 Fig. 1) that performs rough grinding, medium grinding and fine grinding (“three grindstones” [0020]) on a work in order [0023]; the processing device comprising: an index table (21 Fig. 1) that includes a plurality of chucks (22 Fig. 1) for holding the work [0022, 0024], and transports the work [0024] in order of a rough grinding stage [0023] provided with a rough grinding stone (4 Fig. 2; [0028]),
a medium grinding stage [0023] provided with a medium grinding stone (5 Fig. 2; [0028]), and a fine grinding stage [0023] provided with a fine grinding stone (6 Fig. 2; [0028]);
a first column (32 Figs. 1 and 2) extending over the index table (21 Fig. 1), one of the rough grinding stone (4 Fig. 2; [0028]) or the fine grinding stone installed on the first column, said first column (32 Figs. 1 and 2) having a first rear surface (32-R Fig. 1-A inserted above);
a second column (3 Figs. 1 and 2) extending over the index table (21 Fig. 1) and in which the medium grinding stone (5 Fig. 2; [0028]) is installed and the other one of the rough grinding stone or the fine grinding stone (6 Fig. 2; [0028]) is arranged parallel (shown parallel in Figs. 1 and 2) to the medium grinding stone (5 Fig. 2; [0028]),
said second column (3 Figs. 1 and 2) having a second rear surface (3-R Fig. 1-A inserted above);
said first column (32 Figs. 1 and 2) and said second column (3 Figs. 1 and 2) placed adjacent each other and back-to-back (shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above);
the first rear surface (32-R Fig. 1-A inserted above) and the second rear surface (3-R Fig. 1-A inserted above) are placed opposite each other (shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above).
But is silent on wherein vibration is prevented from propagating from the second column to the one of the rough grinding stone and the fine grinding stone installed on the first column; and a gap separating the first rear surface of the first column from the second rear surface of the second column.
Kanazawa in an analogous processing device teaches wherein vibration is prevented from propagating [0015] from the second column to the one of the similar configuration rough grinding stone and the similar configuration fine grinding stone installed on the first column.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing device of Shimoda with the vibration reduction as taught by Kanazawa for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, reducing vibrations to increase the accuracy of the desired effect.
Okada in an analogous processing device (300 Fig. 3) teaches a gap (G Fig. 2-A inserted above) separating the similar configuration first rear surface (10a-R Fig. 2-A inserted above) of the first column from the similar configuration second rear surface (10c-R Fig. 2-A inserted above) of the second column.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second columns of Shimoda with the gap as taught by Okada for the purpose of monitoring and mitigating vibrations between the columns [0063 of Okada].
Referring to claim 10: Shimoda as modified teaches the processing device according to claim 8, wherein: the first rear surface (32-R Fig. 1-A inserted above of Shimoda) forms a first plane (plane “P” of 32-R shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above of Shimoda) and the second rear surface (3-R Fig. 1-A inserted above of Shimoda) forms a second plane (plane “P” of 3-R shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above of Shimoda), the first plane and the second plane being parallel (shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above) and separated by said gap (G Fig. 2-A inserted above of Okada).
Referring to claim 11: Shimoda as modified teaches the processing device according to claim 10 wherein: said gap (G Fig. 2-A inserted above of Okada) extends the entire distance between opposing ends of said first column (10a Fig. 2-A inserted above of Okada) and said second column (10c Fig. 2-A inserted above of Okada).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723