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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 4, are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 – Applicant should indent the paragraphs after “wherein the holder comprises:” to show that these paragraphs are contained within the statement of “wherein the holder comprises:” as is considered part of the “holder.”
Claim 2 – “main body installed on the upper portion of the holder and configured to be movable in a direction toward or away from the holder”
Claim 4 – “the rotating plate is configured to reciprocate
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 “grinder unit” of claim 1 “movable above the holder.” Applicant describes grinder unit 30 as including “a main body (31) installed on an upper portion of the holder (20) and a tool unit (32) rotatably installed on a lower portion of the main body (31) [Application Publication; paragraph 0037]. Applicant also defines the “grinder unit” in claim 2 as a main body and tool unit. Therefore, the “grinder unit” will be considered a main body and tool unit, and equivalents thereof.
A “fixing unit” of claim 1 with means “to fix the object by elastically pressing a side of the object when the object is seated in the seating groove.” The fixing unit is identified as numeral ‘22’ and “includes a fixing block (22a) which is installed on one side of an inner surface of the rotating plate (21)” [Application Publication; paragraph 0034] and an elastic member (22b) that “provides an elastic force to the fixing block (22a) in the direction of the object” to “fix the object by elastically pressing one side of the object seated in the seating groove (21a).” Therefore, the “fixing unit” is considered the fixing block and elastic member, and equivalents thereof.
A “tool unit” of claim 2 (and incorporated into the definition of the grinder unit of claim 1) with means to “[grind] the object while rotating in contact with the object.” Applicant identifies the “tool unit” as numeral ‘32’ and defines the “tool unit” as “a body portion (32a) rotatably coupled to one side of the moving block (31c), and a polishing pad (32b) made of a felt material or a fabric material which is coupled to the lower portion of the body portion (32a) and placed on the upper portion of the holder (20).” [Application Publication; paragraph 0040]. Therefore, the ”tool unit” is considered a body portion and polishing pad, and equivalents thereof.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, and those claims depending therefrom, 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 1, the claimed “a grinder unit installed to be movable above the holder and having a polishing pad on one surface thereof corresponding to the object” is indefinite. The term “grinder unit” is to be interpreted under means-plus-interpretation (see above). This equates to a “main body” and a “tool unit.” However, Applicant refers to the “grinder unit” in claim 1 as “having a polishing pad on one surface thereof corresponding to the object.” This makes unclear if “having” is meant to define the “grinder unit” and negate the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation above as it adds structure, or if this is meant to act as “further comprising” where the claimed grinder unit comprises the “main body” and “tool unit” and further includes a “polishing pad.”
Adding to this ambiguity is that the interpretation of “grinder unit” includes the “tool unit” which is interpreted to be a polishing pad and equivalents thereof. Therefore, the polishing pad is considered a “tool unit” which is considered part of the “grinder unit.” This hints that Applicant is attempting to define the “grinder unit” as a polishing pad.
However, in claim 2, upon which claim 1 depends, Applicant defines the “grinder unit” as being made up of a “main body” and a “tool unit,” seeming to imply that the claimed polishing pad of claim 1 isn’t considered the “grinding unit.”
It should be noted that Applicant uses the term “having” to further describe the grinder unit as “having a polishing pad.” It is unclear if this requires “having” to be akin to “comprising,” meaning that the claim is saying the “grinder unit [is made up of] a polishing pad,” or “further comprising,” meaning that, in addition to the grinder unit, the grinder unit also has a polishing pad. MPEP 2111.03.IV specifically mentions the ambiguity regarding the term “having.” It has been held that “[t]ransitional phrases such as "having" must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended. See, e.g., Lampi Corp. v. American Power Products Inc., 228 F.3d 1365, 1376, 56 USPQ2d 1445, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider the “grinder unit” to be a “main body” and “tool unit”, and equivalents thereof, as interpreted above. As this interpretation includes a tool unit which is considered to include a “polishing pad,” then this will be interpreted as “a grinder unit installed to be movable above the holder and having a
Regarding claim 1, the claimed “a fixing unit installed on one side of an inner wall of the rotating plate having the seating groove so as to fix the object by elastically pressing a side of the object when the object is seated in the seating groove” is indefinite. This is grammatically unclear as to what is “having” the seating groove. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “a fixing unit installed on one side of an inner wall of the rotating plate[, the rotating plate] having the seating groove[,] so as to fix the object by elastically pressing a side of the object when the object is seated in the seating groove.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, and those claims depending therefrom, would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “a stage which is installed to move along the X-axis and the Y-axis, and is rotatable about its own axis” and a “holder above the stage and supporting an object” wherein “the holder comprises: a rotating plate which includes a seating groove…is installed to move along the X-axis and the Y-axis in an installation target area” and “a fixing unit installed on one side of an inner wall.” Particularly, he prior art fails to disclose a “fixing unit” on one side of a rotating plate, wherein the fixing unit that comprises a fixing block and elastic member for elastically pressing a side of the object when the object is seated in the seating groove as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-5,711,196 and US-6,485,361 are pertinent to delayering. US-2006/0099886, US-6,030,282, US-20140076500, US-2014/0150981, US-7,004,827, US-4,603,867, and US-6,513,796 are pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723