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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted on 8/11/2023 and 8/30/2023 are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a connecting part with a further guide arrangement serves for guiding the tool and a force urging the tool in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 and 6-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-18, and 19, please amend the article(s) of the preambles to reflect “The” instead of “A…”.
Regarding claim 9, please amend “the pin engaging in a slot…” to read “ the guide pin engaging in a slot…”.
Regarding claim 10, please amend “the stroke” to read “the predetermined stroke”.
Regarding claim 17, please amend “the triangle” to read “the isosceles triangle”.
Regarding claim 20, “pivotation” is not a word. Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “pivotal axis (A)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 independent claims 1 and 5, please add a colon following the preamble in order to separate the preamble from the body of the claim. As currently recited, is it difficult to discern what is imparted into the claims due to a lack of a colon. For example, in method claim 1, the first performance of a step appears to be “wherein material removal is produced by…”, however, it is unclear. Furthermore, in the context of apparatus claim 5, it appears the first recitation providing additional structure to the invention appears to be “wherein the device has a base…”. Within the context of the apparatus claim, it is unclear what is intended use and what is in the scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what steps are being specifically called out during the method claim. For example, claim 1 does not recite “providing an axicon…providing a tool…removing material at the cone surface by the tool…”. The verb tenses and arrangement of the claim limitations render the metes and bounds of the claimed invention indefinite.
Further regarding claim 1, is it unclear what structure is physically imparted into the claimed invention in the recitation of geometrically indeterminate cutting edges. Firstly, it is unclear if the claim intended to impart the latter recitation into the claimed tool, i.e. the tool has geometrically indeterminate cutting edges. Secondly, it is unclear what is the intended structure.
Further regarding claim 1, please amend the claim to delete or clarify what is imparted by “that in this case…”. The language is narrative, nor does “this case” have antecedent basis”. Please also amend the claim to reflect “a radial direction” rather than the recited “a direction radial”, and further clarify what the radial direction is correlated with. Examiner is interpreting the radial direction to reflect a radial direction of the axicon, i.e. to and fro from the cone axis.
Regarding claim 2, given the recitation of oscillating linear movement, it is unclear what is additionally imparted by recitation of an advance movement, as the “advance movement” is limited by recitations describing what is an oscillating linear movement. Claim 1 specifically points out and claims "solely from a rotational movement…and a relatively oscillating linear movement…”. Thus, for the purposes of examination, the claimed advance movement is synonymous with the oscillating linear movement. Furthermore, the form of claim 2 is narrative, which correlates to the indefiniteness of the recitation of an advance movement. Please amend the claim to reflect the intended steps of operation. Additionally, “the proximity” does not have antecedent basis; please also add ’said’ before the recitation of radial direction.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “a rotational speed of the axicon…and a frequency of the relative oscillating linear movement…are so matched to one another…” renders the claimed invention indefinite, as it is unclear what is being imparted by “so matched”. The claim then goes on to say that the number of reciprocating movements per revolution is an uneven number, which further exacerbates/conflicts with being “matched”. Please amend the claim to reflect the intended scope, correlate the recited reciprocating movement(s) to the oscillating linear movement, and establish proper antecedent basis between the recitation of “the number…” and “an uneven number”. For the purposes of examination, the tool reciprocates an uneven number of times per revolution.
Regarding claim 5, some of the issues pointed out in the combination rejection of claims 1 and 5 above are exacerbated by the subsequent recitations of claim 5. For example, claim 5 recites “a device….by a tool…” without establishing or reciting that the device comprises a tool. Furthermore, it is unclear if the guide arrangement or the tool carriage is the structure which is oscillated and carries the tool. Please break apart the claim language to recite, for example, a guide arrangement configured to guide a tool carriage, wherein the tool carriage is configured to oscillate along an oscillation axis and carry the tool, and wherein the tool carriage is longitudinally movable”. The latter language is a suggestion based on an interpretation, however, Examiner recommends amending the claim to reflect Applicant’s actual intent.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “on each of mutually facing sides” without relying upon an article (i.e. said) or the antecedently established mutually opposite sides of claim 6. Are the sides of claim 7 different from the sides of claim 6? If so, what are the mutually opposite sides a part of? Claim 7 then further recites on each of mutually remote sides, which compounds the issue.
Regarding claim 8, “the oscillatory drive” does not have antecedent basis. Further regarding claim 8, although the claim lacks a correlation, the recitation of “a reciprocating linear movement” is being interpreted as correlated with the recitation of oscillation in claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “at least two mutually parallelly extending slots”. Claim 9, from which claim 11 depends, also recites “a slot”. It is unclear if the slot established in claim 9 is in addition to or separate from those recited in claim 11, i.e. please clarify the claim for antecedent basis purposes and use consistent claim language.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear what is imparted in the recitation of “substantially the form of an isosceles triangle”. In geometry, an isosceles triangle is defined by two sides of equal length and two angles of equal measure. Deviation therefrom, i.e. “substantially”, renders the scope of the claimed invention indefinite. Furthermore “a processing region” was previously recited and established antecedently in claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, “a processing region” was previously recited and established antecedently in claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, it is unclear what is intended to be imparted into the claimed invention in the recitation of a notional plane. A notion is acknowledged as an idea or belief, and it is unclear what is imparted into the claimed invention. Examiner acknowledges the possibility that the intention was “motional”, however, the Specification also recites “notional” in [0021] and [0061].
Further regarding claim 19, in the recitation of “which project into a work space”, it is unclear what structures are being limited. Please amend the claim to reflect, for example, wherein the __ and ___ project into a work space…”.
Further regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites “a device (10) for fine-processing of an axicon (L) according to claim 5 is mounted on an end of the tool spindle (14) facing the workpiece spindle (16)”. However, claim 5 also recites, inter alia, “a tool spindle”, “a fine processing machine”, etc., which are also recited in claim 19. Please amend the claim such that the antecedent bases are clear, or incorporate the appropriate subject matter of claim 5 so as to avoid antecedent basis issues.
Any claim listed as rejected above but not specifically addressed above has inherited the rejection of a claim specifically addressed above due to dependency therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (DE 19616526 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Jung discloses a device (see Figure 1) for fine-processing of an axicon (see workpiece 23), which has at least one concave or convex cone surface with a cone axis and a cone angle (see Figure 4a, concave surface 33, and axis of the workpiece 23), by a tool (see tool 19) having a processing region for linear engagement with the cone surface to be processed (shown in Figure 4A), wherein the device has
a base (see bed 4), which is adapted to be flange-mounted on a tool spindle (see one of servomotor 10, 11, or 14, all of which are mounted to bed 4) of a fine-processing machine (see Figure 3) and on which is mounted a guide arrangement (see guides 6 or 9, Figure 1) guiding a tool carriage (7 or 8), which is drivable for oscillation along an oscillation axis (wherein slide 8 is oscillated in the vertical direction, wherein slide 7 is oscillated in the horizontal direction) and which carries the tool (19) for fine-processing of the axicon, to be longitudinally movable (please see at least the double arrows in the X direction and Z direction, as can be seen in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Jung discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Jung further discloses wherein the guide arrangement comprises a guide frame on which guide rails for the tool carriage are mounted on mutually opposite sides (wherein there are horizontal guide rails within guide bed 4 on opposing sides of slide 6/7, and wherein there are vertical side guides within guide 9 on mutually opposing sides of slide 8, i.e. there are multiple elements which read onto the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 7, Jung discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Jung further discloses wherein the guide rails are made of a slide bearing material and have a respective V-shaped groove on each of mutually facing sides (wherein as can be seen in Figure 3, the horizontal guide rails comprise a dove tail arrangement, i.e. V-shaped grooves; additionally, as can be seen in Figure 1, the guide 9 has a dove tail arrangement as well, i.e. also V-shaped grooves),
wherein the tool carriage on each of mutually remote sides has a respective wedge-shaped guide section and wherein the wedge-shaped guide sections of the tool carriage are received in the V-shaped grooves of the guide rails to be capable of sliding (wherein as can be seen in Figure 3, the slide 6/7 has a wedge shape which fits into the dovetail v-shaped grooves; wherein as can be seen in Figure 1, the slide element 8 also has a wedge shape which fits into the dovetail v-shaped grooves).
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Logan (US 4989316).
Regarding claim 5, Logan discloses a device (see Figure 1 and Abstract ) for fine-processing of an axicon (38), which has at least one concave or convex cone surface with a cone axis and a cone angle (see Figure 2, surface 44, Col. 4, lines 18-35), by a tool (50) having a processing region for linear engagement with the cone surface to be processed (shown in Figure 2), wherein the device has
a base (18), which is adapted to be flange-mounted on a tool spindle (wherein base 18 is mounted to and on the spindle element 28/30) of a fine-processing machine (shown in Figure 1) and on which is mounted a guide arrangement (see walls surrounding the slide 22) guiding a tool carriage (slide 22), which is drivable for oscillation along an oscillation axis (see arow 23) and which carries the tool (50) for fine-processing of the axicon (38), to be longitudinally movable (see Col. 4, lines 8-17; see also Col. 4, lines 41-50).
Regarding claim 6, Logan discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Logan further discloses wherein the guide arrangement comprises a guide frame on which guide rails for the tool carriage are mounted on mutually opposite sides (see the opposing sides of the area accommodating the slide 22, i.e. opposing rails on either side of slide 22).
Regarding claim 8, Logan discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Logan further discloses wherein provided for the oscillatory drive of the tool carriage is a transmission mechanism adapted to convert a rotational movement produced by the tool spindle of the fine-processing machine into a reciprocating linear movement of the tool carriage along the oscillation axis (wherein slide 22 is driven by servomotor 28 and lead screw 30, i.e. the rotational motion produced by the motor and screw 30 is translated into linear movement of the carriage supporting the tool 50).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durazo (US 6,122,999) in view of Schmidt (US 9,278,418).
Regarding claim 1, Durazo (US 6,122,999) discloses a method for fine-processing of an axicon (see Abstract),
which has at least one concave or convex cone surface (see Figures 1A-1C, as well as lens 32) with a cone axis and a cone angle (Please refer to Figure 3 regarding the axis and angle of the intended workpiece, as well as Figures 1A-1C, i.e. the lens workpiece; see also Col. 2, line 67-Col. 3, line 3; see also Col. 5, lines 7-13),
by use of a tool (see tool 29, Figure 3) which has a processing region for linear engagement with the cone surface to be processed, the processing region having a front end with respect to the cone axis (see at least Figure 3 regarding the structure of tool 29, as well as Col. 6, lines 1-14), with use of geometrically indeterminate cutting edges (see Figure 3),
wherein material removal is produced by use of the tool at the cone surface of the axicon by a relative cutting speed resulting solely from a rotational movement of the axicon about the cone axis and a relative oscillating linear movement (see oscillation axis 48) of the tool that in this case is disposed in linear engagement with the cone surface to be processed (Col. 3, lines 1-31: a spindle for rotating the workpiece about an axis of rotation and a cutting tool, wherein there is a moveable bed means for supporting the cutting tool in a fixed angular orientation relative to the axis of rotation and for moving the cutting tool along a path, including oscillating the cutting tool along an oscillation axis), in which the front end of the processing region as seen in a plan view moves back and forth in a direction radial with respect to the cone axis (see Figure 4, as well as Col. 6, lines 1-45).
However, Durazo does not explicitly teach the material of the tool, nor a liquid during processing, i.e. the tool having edges in the form of bound or loose grain in combination with a liquid at the processing region of the tool.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Schmidt (US 9,278,418) teaches a tool having edges in the form of bound or loose grain in combination with a liquid at the processing region of the tool (Col. 5, line 56-Col. 6, line 11; Col. 8, lines 15-29 teach of polycrystalline diamond, CVD, natural diamond; see also Col. 10, lines 5-19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Durazo to incorporate the fluid and tool material as taught by Schmidt. One would be motivated to do so because the material suggested by Schmidt ensures performance of the tool in the context of lens processing systems, while the fluid provided by Schmidt provides cooling such that the service life of the tool is advantageously prolonged and risks to a user’s health are minimized as a result of binding finer materials via the fluid (Col. 1, lines 45-53; Col. 8, lines 16-29).
Regarding claim 2, Durazo in view of Schmidt teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Durazo further teaches wherein initially a relative aligning and adjusting movement is produced between the axicon and the tool in accordance with the cone angle, as a consequence of which the processing region of the tool comes into the linear engagement with the cone surface of the axicon (Durazo: see Col. 6, lines 3-7: the angular orientation of the cutting tool 29 relative to the tool holder is shifted to an angle in order to effect an appropriate presentation of the cutting tool to the workpiece, see also Figure 4, as well as Col. 6, lines 1-48),
wherein the front end of the processing region faces the cone axis, whereupon the relative oscillating linear movement (see oscillating axis 48) is produced between the axicon (lens blank 32), which is driven to rotate about the cone axis (see axis of rotation 33, as well as Col. 5, lines 43-45 describing the overlapping features between the prior art and apparatus disclosed by Durazo, i.e. the spindle 22 for the workpiece 32), and
the tool (29) as an advance movement in which the front end of the processing region during a revolution of the axicon about the cone axis moves as seen in plan view multiple times over the cone surface in radial direction with respect to the cone axis from an outer edge region of the cone surface to at least the proximity of the cone axis and back again (see at least Figure 4, as well as Col. 1, line 64-Col. 2, line 2 regarding revolutions and oscillations; see also Col. 2, lines 56-61; see also Col. 4, lines 4-17 and 28-30).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durazo (US 6,122,999) in view of Schmidt (US 9,278,418), in further view of Schneider (US 2015/0128773).
Regarding claim 3, Durazo in view of Schmidt teaches the claimed invention as applied above. Modified Durazo intimates and suggests controlling the oscillation of the tool holder in at least Col. 6, lines 1-14. However, modified Durazo does not explicitly teach wherein during the fine-processing of the cone surface a rotational speed of the axicon about the cone axis and a frequency of the relative oscillating linear movement of the tool over the cone surface are so matched to one another that the number of reciprocating movements of the tool per revolution of the axicon is an uneven number.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Schneider (US 2015/0128773) teaches wherein during the fine-processing of the cone surface a rotational speed of the axicon about the cone axis and a frequency of the relative oscillating linear movement of the tool over the cone surface are so matched to one another that the number of reciprocating movements of the tool per revolution of the axicon is a number ([0080]: the drive 9 is used to reciprocate the tool 3 while the workpiece 2 is rotated, and wherein the tool 3 can be moved back and forth during one revolution of the workpiece several times; wherein the movement of the tool 3 along linear axis Z2 depends on the rotational position of the workpiece 2 on spindle 7; see also [0035], [0052]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Durazo to reflect a number of reciprocating movements along the axis (48) per revolution of the workpiece, as taught by Schneider. Modified Durazo provides a foundation of contemplating the correlation between tool oscillation and workpiece rotation as pointed out above. The modification of contemplating a specific relationship between the components during operation would recognized as using a known technique, i.e. correlating operational parameters, to improve a similar oscillating/rotating lens device in the same manner by permitting a user to select the ultimate quantity of strokes and tool path, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One would also be motivated to do so in order to affect the resulting workpiece surface, while incorporating the advantageous ability of having an adjustable rotation speed (see [0052] of Schneider).
Regarding the recitation of the number of reciprocating movements comprising an uneven number, Examiner notes that Schneider teaches moving the tool back and forth several times during one workpiece revolution; the contemplation of plural reciprocations imparts either even or uneven numbers, i.e. the selection of an uneven number of reciprocations results from having only two options, and would be considered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Durazo as modified by Schmidt and Schneider teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, presently modified Durazo does not explicitly teach wherein during the fine-processing of the cone surface the number of reciprocating movements of the tool per revolution of the axicon about the cone axis is greater than or equal to three and smaller than or equal to seven.
However, regarding the narrowing of the number of reciprocations from an uneven number (as recited in claim 3) to a number that is greater than or equal to three and smaller than or equal to seven, Schneider does teach wherein the tool 3 can be moved back and forth during one revolution of the workpiece several times in [0080]. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found the claimed range as obvious over the suggestions of the prior art, and furthermore, would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. The advantages of having the ability to adjust the tool parameters are also applicable within the context of claim 4, as explained in the rejection of claim 3 above, and thus one would have the ability to select a particular number within the context of the suggestions of ‘several’.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan (US 4,989,316) in view of Imai (US 20070180961).
Regarding claim 17, Logan discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Logan does not explicitly teach wherein the tool as seen in plan view has substantially the form of an isosceles triangle, with a processing region which has a front end at a tip of the triangle and which on each of mutually opposite longitudinal sides of the triangle allows for respective linear engagement with the cone surface to be processed of the axicon.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Imai teaches of a device configured for operating on lens elements ([0056]), wherein the tool as seen in plan view has substantially the form of an isosceles triangle, with a processing region which has a front end at a tip of the triangle and which on each of mutually opposite longitudinal sides of the triangle allows for respective linear engagement (see Figure 5B, 13A, 13B, as well as [0058], [0095], [0164]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Logan to reflect the cutting tip configuration shape as taught by Imai. One would be motivated to do so not only because Logan specifically suggests alternatives to the tool, see Col. 4, line 61-Col. 5, line 4, but also because a user would select the most beneficial and appropriate tool shape for the task at hand, i.e. Imai answers the suggestion of Logan.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan (US 4,989,316) in view of Durazo (US 6,122,999).
Regarding claim 18, Logan discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Logan does not explicitly teach wherein the tool is substantially strip-shaped with a processing region which has a front end at a transverse side of the tool and which along a longitudinal side of the tool allows for linear engagement with the cone surface to be processed of the axicon.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Durazo teaches wherein the tool is substantially strip-shaped with a processing region which has a front end at a transverse side of the tool and which along a longitudinal side of the tool allows for linear engagement with the cone surface to be processed of the axicon (wherein tool 29 is substantially strip shaped, as can be seen in Figure 3; see also Col. 6, lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Logan to reflect the cutting tip configuration shape as taught by Durazo. One would be motivated to do so not only because Logan specifically suggests alternatives to the tool, see Col. 4, line 61-Col. 5, line 4, but also because a user would select the most beneficial and appropriate tool shape for the task at hand, i.e. Durazo answers the suggestion of Logan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16, 19, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723