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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered.
In view of applicant’s filings and amendments the drawing objections and claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Ford’s element 38 functions as a holder and not a sleeve structure as claimed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ford’s element 38 is a tubular shaped element in which the sample is placed, or in which the sleeve is placed over the sample/ workpiece. This would appear to meet the limitation “a sealing sleeve configured to be sleeved over an outer wall of a workpiece”.
Applicant argues that Ford’s element 32 is not a separate clamping mechanism or of a first pressure applied thereby to the sealing sleeve. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ford’s element 32 is clearly around an outer wall of the sealing sleeve and can provided pressure to element 38. This is interpreted as meeting the claimed limitation.
Applicant further argues that “Ford fails to disclose "a pressing mechanism arranged on the top of the sealing sleeve and configured to provide a second pressure to the sealing sleeve." and “Hence, liner 34 is not disclosed as a pressure-applying member and is not arranged on the top of fixture 38. Accordingly, liner 34 cannot reasonably correspond to the claimed pressing mechanism” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ford’s Liner element 34 has a lip where it is in contact with element 38, and thus is capable of applying some pressure to element 38.
Applicant also argues that “Ford fails to disclose "an inner cavity for containing a chemical reagent is formed inside the pressing mechanism."”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ford’s liner 34 has cavity 33 and is capable of the claimed function of “containing a chemical reagent”.
Finally, applicant argues that Ford fails to disclose two distinct pressure applying structures. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Liner 34 touches element 38 on one side, and element 32 touches element 38 on another side. Both 34 and 32 are in contact with 38, and thus are interpreted as being able to apply pressure.
Consequently, applicant’s arguments regarding Ford are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by GB 2626665 A to Ford.
Regarding claim 1: Ford discloses
1. A sealed cobalt removal tooling (Abstract), comprising:
a sealing sleeve 38 configured to be sleeved over an outer wall of a workpiece 1;
a clamping mechanism (Fig. 3, top of 32 adjacent 38 with threads 39) sleeved over an outer wall of the sealing sleeve and configured to provide a first pressure to the sealing sleeve; and
a pressing mechanism 34 (Figure 3) arranged on a first end of the sealing sleeve and configured to provide a second pressure to the sealing sleeve, wherein an inner cavity 33 for containing a chemical reagent is formed inside the pressing mechanism, and a first end of the workpiece is capable of extending into the inner cavity (Figure 3, POD material 12 of cutting element 1 extends into cavity 33).
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(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2626665 A to Ford in view of CN 212713759 U to LI .
Regarding claim 8: Ford discloses the claimed invention except 8. The sealed cobalt removal tooling of claim 1, further comprising an enclosing mechanism, wherein the sealing sleeve, the clamping mechanism, and the pressing mechanism are all located in the enclosing mechanism.
Li teaches a similar device for a similar purpose where multiple fixtures in an enclosure with wheels 600.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Ford and made an enclosure to house multiple fixtures of his apparatus 30 and to have wheels on the enclosure, in view of Li, as it adds convenience “to move the cobalt removing device, further improves the working efficiency.” (2nd to last paragraph of the English translation.)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2626665 A to Ford..
Regarding claim 11: Ford discloses11. The sealed cobalt removal tooling of claim 1, wherein a first face of the workpiece1 protrudes from a top face of the sealing sleeve (Figure 3). However Ford fails to disclose by a protrusion height of H, where H=600-800 μm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the protrusion height of H, where H=600-800 μm , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7,9-10, and 12-17 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEVEN MACDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/STEVEN A MACDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights