DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 6 – 9, in the reply filed on 10/30/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/30/25.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the phrase “The present disclosure”.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1, it appears that “a step” should read the step. On line 4, it appears that “a collected displacement values” should read a collected displacement value. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (CN1490125, hereinafter Dai) in view of Hu et al. (CN105598785, hereinafter Hu). Regarding claim 6, Dai discloses an apparatus comprising mounting an optical element 210 (See Fig. 6) to be processed on a polishing device 101, and aligning a coordinate system of the optical element with a processing coordinate system; controlling a sensor 206 to collect displacement values between the sensor and the optical element, controlling a polishing wheel 33 to move along a predetermined processing trajectory; obtaining error values between the displacement values and predetermined values; determining whether the error values satisfy a precision requirement; if yes, compensating the error values into the predetermined processing trajectory of the magnetorheological polishing device; if not, correcting the predetermined processing trajectory according to the error value; and obtaining the error values between the displacement values and the predetermined values again according to a corrected predetermined processing trajectory (See Figs. 5 and 6, See Abstract, Pg. 3, Paras. 3 -5, Pg. 4, Paras. 1, 4 and 5, Pg. 5, Paras. 1 – 3, Pg. 6, Paras. 1 – 6 and Pg. 7, Para. 1). Dai fails to disclose mounting an arc-shaped support bracket of a precision calibrating device on a support base of a polishing wheel. However, Hu discloses an apparatus comprising a polishing device including a support frame 23 and an arc-shaped polishing wheel 29 and bracket assembly 25 (See Fig. 4, See Pg. 5, Para. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Dai according to the teachings of Hu for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device can generate high frequency error in random path (See Hu, the Abstract).9. Claims 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai and Hu, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN109605134, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 7, Dai and Hu fail to disclose that the step of controlling the sensor to collect the displacement values between the sensor and the optical element to be processed and controlling the polishing wheel to move along the predetermined processing trajectory comprises sending an instruction to a signal acquisition circuit and a motion control circuit through a computer, controlling the sensor to collect data through the signal acquisition circuit; and sending the instruction to a control system of the magnetorheological polishing device and the motion control circuit, so that the polishing wheel moves along the predetermined processing trajectory. However, Li discloses a method and apparatus comprising controlling a measurement device (processing element) 160 and a polishing wheel 40 including sending a signal to a circuit 50 through an IPC 30 and a controller 60 to enable the wheel 40 to move (See Pg. 4, Para. 10, Pg. 5, Paras. 1 - 4 and 13, Pg. 6, Paras. 1 and 11 and Pg. 7, Paras. 1 - 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Dai and Hu according to the teachings of Li for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a calibration device and method that can realize polishing gap automation with high efficiency and high precision measurement (See Li, Pg. 2, Para. 7). Regarding claim 8, Dai and Hu fail to disclose that the step of obtaining the error values between the displacement values and the predetermined values comprises processing the data collected by the sensor by the computer and comparing a collected displacement values with the predetermined values to obtain the error values. However, in Li, determining the error values between the displacement values and the predetermined values comprises processing the data collected by the sensor by the computer and comparing a collected displacement values with the predetermined values to obtain the error values (See Pg. 4, Para. 10, Pg. 5, Paras. 1 - 4 and 13, Pg. 6, Paras. 1 and 11 and Pg. 7, Paras. 1 - 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Dai and Hu according to the teachings of Li for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a calibration device and method that can realize polishing gap automation with high efficiency and high precision measurement (See Li, Pg. 2, Para. 7).10. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai, Hu, and Li, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tie et al. (CN107791104, hereinafter Tie). Regarding claim 9, Dai fails to disclose that the error values comprise medium frequency errors and high frequency errors. However, in Hu, the controlled error values are high frequency error values that are reduced (See Pg. 2, Paras. 2 and 5 and Pg. 6, Para. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Dai according to the teachings of Hu for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device can generate high frequency error in random path (See Hu, the Abstract). Dai, Hu and Li fail to disclose that the error values comprise low frequency errors. However, Tie discloses an apparatus comprising a sensing device that measures low frequency error for an element (See Fig. 2, See Pg. 6, lines 1 – 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Dai, Hu and Li according to the teachings of Tie for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a polishing device that enables enhanced processing efficiency and effective control (See Tie, Pg. 2, Para. 5).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.12. Zhang et al. (CN120395546) disclose a magnetorheological polishing device and method based on a sensor adjusting electromagnet. Li et al. (CN111805427) disclose a precision calibration device and method of magnetorheological polishing device. Wu et al. (CN106799738) disclose a free form surface of the industrial robot automatic grinding and polishing system and method. Ibach et al. (2008/0216552) disclose a robot controlled optical measurement array, and method and auxiliary mechanism for calibrating said measurement array. Paltieli et al. (2002/0035864) disclose a calibration method and apparatus for calibrating position sensors on scanning transducers. Sarfaty et al. (5,741,171) disclose a precision polishing system.13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 12/23/25