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 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 2, and those depending therefrom including claims 3-8, 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 “obtaining…measurement values of a working gap width at two or more radially spaced apart locations,” “determining measurement value averages from the measurement values of the working gap width at the two or more radially spaced apart locations; determining a minimum of the measurement value averages” is indefinite. The claimed “obtaining…measurement values of a working gap width at the two or more radially spaced apart locations” is indefinite as to whether this is obtaining multiple measurement values at each radially spaced apart location, or is simply requiring that at least one measurement value of a working gap is taken at one location, and at least one measurement value of a working gap is taken at a radially spaced apart location, thus making “measurement values.” This then conflates what is being averaged and what is being determined as the minimum(s). Applicant should clarify this. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “obtaining…measurement values of a working gap width at [each of] two or more radially spaced apart locations,” “determining [a] measurement value average from the measurement values of the working gap width at [each of] the two or more radially spaced apart locations; determining a minimum of the measurement value averages.”
Regarding claim 2, “identifying multiple measurement values of the measurement values that form the minimum of the measurement value averages” is indefinite. First, “the minimum” is singular and, therefore, it’s indefinite how one obtains multiple measurement values that equate to a singular “minimum.” Second, multiple measurement values are already implicitly identified and therefore “identifying multiple measurement values of the measurement values” is confusing. Applicant should consider revision of the claim to clearly articulate what is being claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, and those depending therefrom, including claims 2-8, 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, Kanzow (US-2012/0164919) discloses a method for configuring a double- or single-sided processing machine having a first working disk carrier disk 12) and a counter-bearing element (drive),
wherein the first working disk (carrier disk 12) and the counter-bearing element (drive) can be driven rotationally relative to each other (“At least one of the carrier disks 12, 14 is thereby connected with a drive that is not shown in greater detail here, with which the carrier disk 12, 14 and thus the work disk 16, 18 assigned to it can be rotatingly driven around the rotational axis shown in FIG. 1 with 25.”) [Kanzow; paragraph 0043], and
wherein a working gap for double-sided or single-sided processing of flat workpieces is formed between the first working disk and the counter-bearing element, the method comprising:
deforming, step-by-step or continuously using a deforming actuator, the first working disk (disk 12) between a concave shape and a convex shape (“According to a further embodiment, it can be provided that the work surface of at least one of the work disks can be adjusted into a convex or a concave shape”) [Kanzow; paragraph 0028];
obtaining, during the deforming of the first working disk, measurement values of a working gap width at two or more radially spaced apart locations (at sensors 26 and 28) of the first working disk (“In the upper work disk 16, two distance sensors 26, 28, here eddy current sensors 26, 28, are arranged at two radially spaced locations, which measure the distance between the upper work disk 16 and the lower work disk 18, in particular the distance between the work surfaces 20, 22.”) [Kanzow; paragraph 0044] (“it can be provided that the distance measurement takes place at the measurement locations in that the distance at the respective measurement location is measured multiple times during one or more revolutions of the at least one rotatingly driven work disk and a parameter is determined from the measurement characteristic and this parameter is compared with a reference parameter”) [Kanzow; paragraph 0033], but fails to disclose:
determining measurement value averages from the measurement values of the working gap width at the two or more radially spaced apart locations;
determining a minimum of the measurement value averages; and
specifying, based on the minimum, a target value for the deforming actuator as a starting actuation value for processing a flat workpiece in the double- or single-sided processing machine.
The prior art of DE102008056276 states that a minimum can be used to find the greates possible parallelism (“This size may be, for example, that of the adjusting device on the upper carrier disk 20 acted force act. It can be seen that the measurement curve has a minimum, the reference numeral 48 is shown. At this minimum 48 are the upper and lower working discs 24 . 26 aligned in parallel, that is the working gap 32 has the greatest possible parallelism. Now, for example, the working can be kept as plane-parallel as possible, can be controlled by means of a control device not shown in the figures adjusting device so that the distance D to the in 3 to be detected minimum value is regulated. In this way, in turn, the working gap 32 be regulated as plane-parallel as possible”), but does not make obvious “determining measurement value averages from the measurement values of the working gap width at the two or more radially spaced apart locations” and “specifying, based on the minimum, a target value for the deforming actuator as a starting actuation value” as claimed, particularly where “obtaining, during the deforming of the first working disk, measurement values of a working gap width at two or more radially spaced apart locations” [emphasis added].
Claims 2-8 would be allowable for depending therefrom.
Claim 9, and those depending therefrom, including claims 10-20, are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “measuring apparatuses configured to measure a working gap width at two or more radially spaced apart locations of the first working disk during the step-by-step or continuous deformation of the first working disk to generate measurement values and to give the measurement values to the control apparatus, wherein: the control apparatus is configured to determine measurement value averages from the measurement values; and the control apparatus is configured to determine a minimum of the measurement value averages and, using the minimum, specify a target value for the deforming actuator as a starting value for processing a flat workpiece in the double- or single-sided processing machine.” [emphasis added].
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-2014/0206261, US-2003/0186624, US-2006/0040589, US-2008/0014839, US-20080038989, US-20080233840, US-20110189505, US-20160031062, US-20170225292, US-6299514, WO2010139397, US-9724800, and US-20080233840 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