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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Amendments filed 3/16/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 51-52, 54-60 and 62-72 are pending. Claims 66-70 remain withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 51-52, 54-60, 62-65 and 71-72 have been examined herein. The previous claim objections, 35 USC 112 rejections, and 35 USC 101 rejections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/15/2026 and 3/25/2026 were filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 62-63 and 72 are 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.
Regarding claim 62, the language recites “wherein said at least one polishing related parameter is selected from the group consisting of: vibration, sound, displacement, dissipated heat and pressure”. However, claim 51 was amended to recite that the at least one polishing related parameter comprises vertical position. It is not precisely clear if the language of claim 62 is meant to be in addition to the vertical position or if vertical position should be listed in the closed group of claim 62. Overall, it is not precisely clear how the at least one parameter including vertical position relates to the additional closed group parameters of claim 62. For purpose of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “wherein said at least one polishing related parameter further comprises or pressure”.
Regarding claim 63, the language recites “wherein said at least one polishing related parameter is electrical current”. However, claim 51 was amended to recite that the at least one polishing related parameter comprises vertical position. It is not precisely clear if the language of claim 63 is meant to be in addition to the vertical position because the language recites “at least one”. Overall, it is not precisely clear if both vertical position and electrical current are required because the language of claim 63 recites that the at least one parameter is electrical current. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “wherein said at least one polishing related parameter [[is]] further comprises electrical current”
Regarding claim 72, the language recites “based on detecting a plurality of candidate of said projections crystallographic axes”. However the term “said projections” lacks proper antecedent basis. Additionally, grammar issues cause confusion around the limitation. For purposes of examination, the language will be interpreted as “based on detecting a plurality of candidates of [[said]] [[projections]] projected crystallographic axes”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 51-52, 62, 64 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neogi et al. (US PGPUB 20060102854), hereinafter Neogi, in view of Sytenko (WO 2020161638) and further in view of Marshall (US PGPUB 20030096559).
Regarding claim 51, Neogi teaches a method for automated faceting (figs. 3-4), the method comprising:
polishing a raw object (see fig. 3 below, diamond; Merriam Webster1 defines raw as not being in polished form. The diamond is being polished and is therefore not in polished form) with a polishing wheel (see fig. 3 below, polishing wheel 100) to form a facet (see fig. 3 below, wherein the diamond is polished to form a finished and polished facet), said polishing being concurrently with:
PNG
media_image1.png
634
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
sensing at least one polishing related parameter (Neogi teaches the diamond temperature is sensed, which is interpreted as a polishing related parameter [0097]); and
in a closed loop control (Neogi teaches real time feedback is achieved through electronics 110 include a wheel/diamond temperature sensor and a pressure sensor mounted on the diamond chuck, and an RPM sensor to monitor the wheel speed [0096]. The real time feedback is interpreted a closed loop control (fig. 4)), adjusting at least one operation parameter selected from the group consisting of: rotation speed of said polishing wheel (Neogi teaches the wheel RPM is adjusted if the temperature moves beyond an acceptable range [0097]), contact pressure of said object against said polishing wheel (The prior art is only required to teach at least one operation parameter from this list. However, Neogi additionally teaches the pressure sensor would provide real time feedback to ensure constant pressure at the point of contact between the diamond and the wheel [0096]. Additionally, Neogi teaches if the temperature moves beyond an acceptable range, the chuck pressure is also adjusted [0097]) and track position of the object on said polishing wheel (The prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites “at least one operation parameter”), responsively to a value of said sensed at least one polishing related parameter [0097].
Neogi does not explicitly teach
sensing at least one polishing related parameter comprising a vertical position of the object;
terminating said polishing when a value of said at least one polishing related parameter is within a predetermined range, thereby forming said facet.
However, Sytenko teaches a gemstone polishing robot including an abrasive surface 21 and a collet 13 for holding the gemstone (fig. 2). Additionally, Sytenko teaches an encoder 30 is configured to detect the depth of polishing of the gemstone by calculating a vertical distance travelled by the head during one polishing iteration. The encoder is configured to detect an event when the gemstone contacts the abrasive surface at the start of the polishing iteration based on said detected pressure and measure an initial height upon detection of the event. The encoder also measures the final height at the end of the polishing iteration [0018]. The robot maintains a constant pressure onto the head such that the diamond is rubbed against the abrasive surface for effecting polishing of the diamond til the head vertically transverses 100 microns or reaches at a height of 5.001 mm) to effect polishing in a single iteration) [0055]. Overall, Sytenko teaches the encoder senses the polishing related parameter of vertical position of the object and maintains constant pressure while in a desired range of polishing of 100 microns [0055].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Neogi to incorporate the teachings of Sytenko to provide sensing at least one polishing related parameter comprising a vertical position of the object. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate Sytenko’s encoder, wherein the encoder senses the vertical position and the robot maintains a constant pressure while the vertical position is within a desired range of polishing. Doing so would prevent damage to the workpiece by over polishing the workpiece. Additionally, doing so would provide an additional control parameter to promote quality of the workpiece.
Although, Neogi, as modified, teaches maintaining a constant pressure while the vertical position is within a desired range of polishing, Neogi, as modified, does not explicitly teach terminating said polishing when the vertical range is outside the desired range.
Specifically, Neogi, as modified, does not explicitly teach terminating said polishing when a value of said at least one polishing related parameter is within a predetermined range, thereby forming said facet.
However, Marshall teaches an abrading process wherein when a force distribution data is outside of a desired range, then the computer can control the process by stopping the process or changing the pressure applied to the substrate [0040]. Overall, Marshall teaches terminating said processing when a value of the force is within a predetermined range (interpreted as inside an undesired range and outside a desired range, as taught by Marshall).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Neogi, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Marshall to provide terminating said polishing when a value of said at least one polishing related parameter is within a predetermined range, thereby forming said facet. Specifically, it would have been obvious to stop the processing when the value of the vertical position is outside the desired vertical position range. Doing so would prevent damage to the workpiece and promote increased quality of the workpiece. Doing so would further prevent polishing as intended, when outside the desired vertical range.
In summary, Neogi, as modified, teaches terminating said polishing when a value of said at least one polishing related parameter is within a predetermined range (Neogi, as modified, teaches sensing the vertical position and stopping polishing when the vertical position is outside a desired range (interpreted as inside an undesired range)), thereby forming said facet (as shown in fig. 3 of Neogi).
Regarding claim 52, Neogi, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 51. Additionally, Neogi, as modified, teaches wherein said adjusting is selected to control a material removal rate for removing material from the object (Neogi additionally teaches the desired finish may be obtained by adjusting the RPM of the wheel in block 134 of fig. 4 [0097 of Neogi] which teaches the adjusting is selected to control a material removal rate for removing material from the object).
Regarding claim 62, Neogi, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 51. Additionally, Neogi, as modified, teaches wherein said at least one polishing related parameter is selected from the group consisting of: vibration, sound, displacement (The prior art is not required to teach these options because the language recites “at least one”), dissipated heat (see above rejection of claim 51, Neogi teaches sensing temperature) and pressure applied on the object (The prior art is only required to teach at least one parameter from this list. However, Neogi also teaches pressure applied on the object is sensed [0096-0097 of Neogi]), associated with contact of the object with said polishing wheel during polishing [0096-0097 of Neogi] (fig. 4 of Neogi).
Regarding claim 64, Neogi teaches apparatus for automated faceting of an object (fig. 3-4) comprising:
a polishing wheel (fig. 3, polishing wheel 100);
a robotic arm (fig. 3, diamond holder, wherein Neogi teaches the diamond holder is lowered until the diamond surface is biased into contact with the polishing wheel [0097]) configured to position the object in contact with said polishing wheel [0097];
a sensor (Neogi teaches real time feedback is achieved through electronics including a wheel/diamond temperature sensor [0096]) configured to sense at least one polishing related parameter during polishing of the object by said polishing wheel (Neogi teaches the diamond temperature is sensed, which is interpreted as a polishing related parameter [0097]); and
a controller (Neogi teaches the query block 128 adjusts the chuck pressure and wheel RPM if the temperature moves beyond an acceptable range [0097]. Neogi’s “query block 128” is interpreted as a controller because it is adjusting) configured to adjust at least one operation parameter selected from the group consisting of current to said robotic arm (The prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites “at least one”), a rotation speed of said polishing wheel (Neogi teaches the wheel RPM is adjusted if the temperature moves beyond an acceptable range [0097]), and track used on said polishing wheel (The prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites “at least one”), during said polishing and in a closed loop control, responsively to a value of said sensed at least one polishing related parameter (Neogi teaches real time feedback is achieved through electronics 110 include a wheel/diamond temperature sensor and a pressure sensor mounted on the diamond chuck, and an RPM sensor to monitor the wheel speed [0096]. The real time feedback is interpreted a closed loop control (fig. 4)).
Neogi does not explicitly teach
said at least one polishing related parameter comprising a vertical position of the object, and
to terminate said polishing when a value of said at least one polishing related parameter is within a predetermined range.
However, Sytenko teaches a gemstone polishing robot including an abrasive surface 21 and a collet 13 for holding the gemstone (fig. 2). Additionally, Sytenko teaches an encoder 30 is configured to detect the depth of polishing of the gemstone by calculating a vertical distance travelled by the head during one polishing iteration. The encoder is configured to detect an event when the gemstone contacts the abrasive surface at the start of the polishing iteration based on said detected pressure and measure an initial height upon detection of the event. The encoder also measures the final height at the end of the polishing iteration [0018]. The robot maintains a constant pressure onto the head such that the diamond is rubbed against the abrasive surface for effecting polishing of the diamond til the head vertically transverses 100 microns or reaches at a height of 5.001 mm) to effect polishing in a single iteration) [0055]. Overall, Sytenko teaches the encoder senses the polishing related parameter of vertical position of the object and maintains constant pressure while in a desired range of polishing of 100 microns [0055].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Neogi to incorporate the teachings of Sytenko to provide wherein said at least one polishing related parameter comprising a vertical position of the object. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate Sytenko’s encoder, wherein the encoder senses the vertical position and the robot maintains a constant pressure while the vertical position is within a desired range of polishing. Doing so would prevent damage to the workpiece by over polishing the workpiece. Additionally, doing so would provide an additional control parameter to promote quality of the workpiece.
Although, Neogi, as modified, teaches maintaining a constant pressure while the vertical position is within a desired range of polishing, Neogi, as modified, does not explicitly teach terminating said polishing when the vertical range is outside the desired range.
Specifically, Neogi, as modified, does not explicitly teach to terminate said polishing when a value of said at least one polishing related parameter is within a predetermined range.
However, Marshall teaches an abrading process wherein when a force distribution data is outside of a desired range, then the computer can control the process by stopping the process or changing the pressure applied to the substrate [0040]. Overall, Marshall teaches terminating said processing when a value of the force is within a predetermined range (interpreted as inside an undesired range and outside a desired range, as taught by Marshall).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Neogi, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Marshall to provide to terminate said polishing when a value of said at least one polishing related parameter is within a predetermined range. Specifically, it would have been obvious to stop the processing when the value of the vertical position is outside the desired vertical position range. Doing so would prevent damage to the workpiece and promote increased quality of the workpiece. Doing so would further prevent polishing as intended, when outside the desired vertical range.
In summary, Neogi, as modified, teaches terminate said polishing when a value of said at least one polishing related parameter is within a predetermined range (Neogi, as modified, teaches sensing the vertical position and stopping polishing when the vertical position is outside a desired range (interpreted as inside an undesired range)).
Regarding claim 71, Neogi, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 51. Neogi, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein said facet is formed over a plurality of polishing iterations.
However, Sytenko additionally teaches a gemstone polishing robot including an abrasive surface 21 and a collet 13 for holding the gemstone (fig. 2). Additionally, Sytenko teaches detecting a depth of polishing achieved in a first iteration (block 652, fig. 6b, [0076]), estimating a gemstone parameter and comparing the estimated gemstone parameter with a predetermined gemstone parameter, generating a feedback signal, conducting an additional polishing iteration according to the feedback signal. The steps shown at blocks 652 to 660 may be repeated until the gemstone parameter matches with the predetermined gemstone parameter with desired accuracy (fig. 6b, [0076]). Overall, Sytenko teaches wherein said facet is formed over a plurality of polishing iterations (fig. 6b, [0076]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Neogi, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Sytenko to provide wherein said facet is formed over a plurality of polishing iterations. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate Sytenko’s iterative polishing process. Doing so would promote increased quality of the workpiece.
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neogi et al. (US PGPUB 20060102854), hereinafter Neogi, in view of Sytenko (WO 2020161638) and further in view of Marshall (US PGPUB 20030096559), as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Enomoto et al. (WO 2018235328), hereinafter Enomoto.
Regarding claim 63, Neogi, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 51. Neogi, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein said at least one polishing related parameter is electrical current supplied to a robotic arm, said electrical current related to said contact pressure of the object against said polishing wheel.
However, Enomoto teaches an automatic grinding apparatus wherein fig. 1 is a view showing an automatic grinding apparatus. A grinding mechanism 2 is provided on the lifting slider 3 and is connected to the control device 4. The lifting slider is configured to be attachable to and detachable from the wrist of an industrial robot. The elevation slider controls the distance in height between he grinder whetstone 6 and the surface to be ground (last paragraph on page 2 of the attached translation). The control device compares the current setting value with the load current detection value of the grinder mechanism, and the distance between the whetstone 6 and the surface to be ground of the object and the pressing force so that the load current becomes a constant value. The lift mechanism is driven to lower the grinder when the load current of the grinder is smaller than the set current value and to raise the grinder when the actual load current is larger than the set current value (second paragraph on page 3 of the attached translation). Overall, Enomoto teaches wherein said at least one polishing related parameter is electrical current supplied to a robotic arm (the sensed current of Enomoto is interpreted as electrical current supplied to a robotic arm of Enomoto), said electrical current related to said contact pressure of the object against said polishing wheel (Enomoto teaches the control device compares the setting value with the load current detection value, and the distance between the whetstone and the surface to be ground and the pressing force so that load current becomes a constant value (second paragraph on page 3 of the attached translation). Therefore, Enomoto teaches said sensed electrical current is related to pressure of the object against the wheel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Neogi, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Enomoto to provide wherein said at least one polishing related parameter is electrical current supplied to a robotic arm, said electrical current related to said contact pressure of the object against said polishing wheel. Specifically, it would have been obvious to further modify Neogi, as modified, to incorporate wherein the electrical current supplied to the robotic arm of Neogi is also sensed, wherein the sensed electrical current is related to pressure of the object of Neogi against the polishing wheel of Neogi, wherein the position of the arm of Neogi is adjusted in response to a comparison of the sensed electrical current and a predetermined electrical current (as taught by Enomoto). Doing so would prevent damage to the workpiece caused by applying too much pressure and doing so also promotes a constant polishing pressure which promotes savings of operation time. Additionally, doing so provides an additional input source which prevents damage to the workpiece in the case the pressure sensor (of Neogi) malfunctions.
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neogi et al. (US PGPUB 20060102854), hereinafter Neogi, in view of Sytenko (WO 2020161638) and further in view of Marshall (US PGPUB 20030096559), as applied to claim 64 above, and further in view of Sivovolenko (US PGPUB 20210129286).
Regarding claim 65, Neogi, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 64. Neogi, as modified, does not explicitly teach comprising an imaging system, wherein said controller is configured to operate said robotic arm to maneuver the object to a focal plane of said imaging system, to operate said imaging system to image a facet of the object intermittently with said polishing, to determine geometry and morphology of said facet, and to update instructions for polishing subsequent polishing iterations based on said detected morphology.
However, Sivovolenko teaches a method for controlling the polishing of gemstones which includes obtaining a 3D model of the gemstone using a suitable scanner [0061], fixing and aligning the gemstone in a dop of a tang (fig. 4), obtaining an image of the initial facet to be polished while the gemstone is in the tang via an imaging device [0065], determining first dop setting parameters for a first planned facet based on the obtained reflect image and the obtained 3D model [0072], setting the position of the dop based on the determined first dop setting parameters and polishing of the gemstone [0075], obtaining a further reflect image of the polished facet while the gemstone is in the tang [0079], determining further dop setting parameters for a further planned facet based on the obtained further reflect image [0081], setting the position of the dop based on the determined further dop setting parameters and polishing of the gemstone to obtain a polished gemstone having polished facet approaching the further planned facet [0083-0084], repeating previous steps as necessary [0086]. Overall, Sivovolenko teaches comprising an imaging system (imaging device of [0065]), wherein said controller (control unit configured to determine dop setting parameters [0040]) is configured to operate said robotic arm to maneuver the object to a focal plane of said imaging system (fig. 5, tang 100 is interpreted as the robotic arm [0095]), to operate said imaging system to image a facet of the object intermittently with said polishing (fig. 5 illustrates a system including a tang arranged in a reflect image capturing device that allows acquiring a facet reflect image [0095], and steps described in paragraphs 0065 and 0079), to determine geometry and morphology of said facet (paragraph 0079 and fig. 3b), and to update instructions for polishing subsequent polishing iterations based on said detected morphology [0080-0085].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Neogi, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Sivovolenko to provide comprising an imaging system, wherein said controller is configured to operate said robotic arm to maneuver the object to a focal plane of said imaging system, to operate said imaging system to image a facet of the object intermittently with said polishing, to determine geometry and morphology of said facet, and to update instructions for polishing subsequent polishing iterations based on said detected morphology. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the configuration of Neogi, as modified, to include an imaging system, wherein a controller instructs the arm of Neogi to maneuver the object to a focal plane of the imaging system, wherein the image system images a facet of the object, wherein the controller determines geometry and morphology of said facet and updates polishing instructions in order to achieve a desired facet, wherein the imaging and updating polishing instructions are repeated as necessary in order to achieve the desired facet. Doing so would provide updated polishing instructions throughout the polishing process in order to more accurately approach a desired facet, thereby promoting a final workpiece with the desired geometries. Additionally, intermittently observing the facet and updating the polishing parameters would prevent damage to the workpiece caused by utilizing inaccurate polishing parameters throughout the entire polishing process.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 54-60 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.
Claim 72 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 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 54, Neogi et al. (US PGPUB 20060102854), hereinafter Neogi, in view of Sytenko (WO 2020161638) and further in view of Marshall (US PGPUB 20030096559) further in view of Benjano (US PGPUB 20140067331) and further in view of Porat (WO 2006087702) is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or make obvious in combination with the additionally cited prior art the features of generating an ordered list of said plurality of facets in a manner that said calculated amounts are descending within said list and wherein said polishing comprises executing a protocol for polishing the plurality of facets of the object according to said ordered list as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claims 51 and 54.
Claims 55-58 are indicated as allowable for depending from claim 54.
Regarding claim 59, Neogi et al. (US PGPUB 20060102854), hereinafter Neogi, in view of Sytenko (WO 2020161638) and further in view of Marshall (US PGPUB 20030096559) and further in view of Benjano (US PGPUB 20140067331) and further in view of Porat (WO 2006087702) is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or make obvious in combination with the additionally cited prior art the features of generating an ordered list of said plurality of facets in a manner that said calculated scores are descending within said list wherein said polishing comprises executing a protocol for forming said plurality of facets according to said ordered list as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claims 51 and 59.
Claim 60 is indicated as allowable for depending from claim 59.
Regarding claim 72, Neogi et al. (US PGPUB 20060102854), hereinafter Neogi, in view of Sytenko (WO 2020161638) and further in view of Marshall (US PGPUB 20030096559) is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or make obvious in combination with the additionally cited prior art the features of predicting crystallographic axes of said raw object based on detecting a plurality of candidates of projected crystallographic axes on one or more facets and selecting a polishing direction for another facet based on predicted crystallographic axes as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claim 51.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As noted above, the previous claim objections, 35 USC 112 rejections and 35 USC 101 rejections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues Neogi fails to anticipate amended claim 64. However, Neogi alone was not relied upon to teach the amended language of claim 64. Rather, Neogi et al. (US PGPUB 20060102854), hereinafter Neogi, in view of Sytenko (WO 2020161638) and further in view of Marshall (US PGPUB 20030096559) was relied upon to teach the amended language of claim 64. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Merriam-Webster’s definition of not being in polished form applies only to abstract nouns. Applicant utilizes the definition of something that is not processed or purified (page 9 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Merriam-Webster does not explicitly state the definition only applies to abstract nouns. Therefore, the definition qualifies as Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI). See above rejection for more details.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards claim 53 is moot as claim 53 is canceled.
Applicant argues incorporating Marshall’s teachings is unreasonable as microelectronic substrates and diamonds are very different and that Marshall’s teachings relate to force distribution data (page 9 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that microelectronic substrates and diamonds are very different and that Marshall’s teachings relate to force distribution data, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, Marshall was only relied upon to teach the concept of terminating said processing when a monitored value is within a predetermined range (interpreted as inside an undesired range and outside a desired range). Neogi, as modified, was modified to incorporate the teachings of Marshall to provide stopping the processing when the value of the vertical position is outside the desired vertical position range. Doing so would prevent damage to the workpiece and promote increased quality of the workpiece. Doing so would further prevent polishing as intended, when outside the desired vertical range.
Applicant argues Neogi’s pressure sensor creating constant pressure feedback does not teach the amended language of sensing at least one polishing related parameter comprising a vertical position of the object as claimed in claims 51 and 64. However, Neogi alone was not relied upon to teach this amended language.
Rather, Sytenko was relied upon to teach a gemstone polishing robot including an abrasive surface 21 and a collet 13 for holding the gemstone (fig. 2). Additionally, Sytenko teaches an encoder 30 is configured to detect the depth of polishing of the gemstone by calculating a vertical distance travelled by the head during one polishing iteration. The encoder is configured to detect an event when the gemstone contacts the abrasive surface at the start of the polishing iteration based on said detected pressure and measure an initial height upon detection of the event. The encoder also measures the final height at the end of the polishing iteration [0018]. The robot maintains a constant pressure onto the head such that the diamond is rubbed against the abrasive surface for effecting polishing of the diamond til the head vertically transverses 100 microns or reaches at a height of 5.001 mm) to effect polishing in a single iteration) [0055]. Overall, Sytenko teaches the encoder senses the polishing related parameter of vertical position of the object and maintains constant pressure while in a desired range of polishing of 100 microns [0055].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Neogi to incorporate the teachings of Sytenko to provide wherein said at least one polishing related parameter comprising a vertical position of the object. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate Sytenko’s encoder, wherein the encoder senses the vertical position and the robot maintains a constant pressure while the vertical position is within a desired range of polishing. Doing so would prevent damage to the workpiece by over polishing the workpiece. Additionally, doing so would provide an additional control parameter to promote quality of the workpiece.
See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are allowable for depending from an allowable independent and the respective dependent features (page 10 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner notes claims 54-60 and 72 have been indicated as allowable. The remaining dependent claims of 52, 62-63, 65 and 71 have been rejected as detailed above. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
1 See NPL1, definition of raw, Merriam-Webster
Prosecution Insights