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 .
Claims 1-13 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation “the programmable module” in line 4 of the claim. This appears to mean “a programmable module”. 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 1-13 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 claims 1-13, the phrases/terms "such as", “optional”, “optionally”, preferably”, “advantageously” “e.g.”, and “etc.” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase/term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, any limitations with the above phrases/terms are interpreted as not being part of the claimed invention. For clarity, the claims are interpreted as follows:1. A control system of gaseous flux for machining material of a workpiece in a machining area
2. The system of claim 1, configured to utilize data
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the sensing data utilized in determining the adjustment indicate or are processed or otherwise utilized to indicate current and/or past characteristics of the input gaseous flow,
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the adjustment is based on a difference between a selected desired output ionized gaseous flux determined through utilization of the sensing data
5. The system claim 1, comprising a filter or membrane dryer for the gaseous flow
6. The system of claim 1, comprising a cooling unit for the gaseous flow
7. The system of claim 1, configured to optimize
8. The system of claim 1, comprising at least one element selected from the group consisting of: power supply unit
9. The system of claim 1, configured to provide negative polarity, positive polarity, or bi-polarity in the electric field chamber to perform the adjustment.
10. The system of claim 1, configured to provide and adjust ion content, total charge, and/or polarity for the ionized gaseous flux.
11. The system of claim 1, configured to adjust flow rate per unit area
12. The system of claim 1, configured to adjust pneumatic air flow control.
13. A method for controlling the provision of gaseous flux in machining workpiece materialof reactions
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akhmetzyanov et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,551,324 (hereinafter “Akhmetzyanov”).
Regarding claim 1, Akhmetzyanov teaches a control system (refer to abstract and figure 1) of gaseous flux (refer to abstract) for machining material (refer to abstract) of a workpiece (i.e. workpiece 11)(fig.1) in a machining area (refer to abstract), the system comprising: a module (refer to fig.1) comprising an electric field chamber (i.e. ionizer 1)(fig.1) for producing and outputting ionized gaseous flux (refer to output nozzle 8)(fig.1) from input gaseous flow (refer to source 3 and regulator 5)(fig.1); and control and monitoring equipment at least functionally connected with the module (refer to col. 3 lines 29-39), wherein the control and monitoring equipment is configured to dynamically estimate, measure and/or adjust, based on input sensing data (refer to col. 3 lines 29-39), a number of flux characteristics including flow rate, polarity and/or ionization level (refer to col. 3 lines 29-39) so as to provide and/or control a number of reactions (refer to col. 3 lines 29-39).
Regarding claim 2, Akhmetzyanov teaches the system of claim 1, configured to utilize data in determining the adjustment of the number of flux characteristics (refer to col. 3 lines 29-39).
Regarding claim 3, Akhmetzyanov teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sensing data utilized in determining the adjustment indicate or are processed or otherwise utilized to indicate current and/or past characteristics of the input gaseous flow, one or more of the characteristics of the output ionized gaseous flux, properties or conditions at the interface between the workpiece and the machining tool, property or condition of the machining tool and/or property or condition of the workpiece (refer to col. 3 lines 29-39).
Regarding claim 7, Akhmetzyanov teaches the system of claim 1, configured to optimize gaseous flow rate to spare energy and/or the gaseous fluid used for establishing the gaseous flow and subsequent ionized gaseous flux (refer to claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, Akhmetzyanov teaches the system of claim 1, configured to provide negative polarity, positive polarity, or bi-polarity in the electric field chamber to perform the adjustment (refer to col. 3 lines 9-21).
Regarding claim 10, Akhmetzyanov teaches the system of claim 1, configured to provide and adjust ion content, total charge, and/or polarity for the ionized gaseous flux (refer to claim 3).
Regarding claim 11, Akhmetzyanov teaches the system of claim 1, configured to adjust flow rate per unit area (inherent)(refer to claims 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 12, Akhmetzyanov teaches the system of claim 1, configured to adjust pneumatic air flow control (refer to regulator 5)(fig.1).
Regarding claim 13, Akhmetzyanov teaches a method for controlling the provision of gaseous flux in machining workpiece material (refer to abstract and figure 1), comprising: - producing and outputting ionized gaseous flux (refer to ionizer 1)(fig.1) based on gaseous flow of gaseous fluid (refer to claims 1 and 3) through utilization of a programmable module (inherent)(refer to col. 3 lines 29-39) comprising an electric field chamber (i.e. ionizer 1)(fig.1), wherein a number of flux characteristics comprising flow rate, polarity and/or ionization level are dynamically measured, estimated and/or adjusted, based on input sensing data (refer to sensor 10)(fig.1), so as to provide or control a number of reactions (refer to claims 1 and 3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akhmetzyanov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. Chinese Patent Document CN 103920979 A (hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 4, Akhmetzyanov teaches the system of claim 1; however, Akhmetzyanov does not teach wherein the adjustment is based on a difference between a selected desired output ionized gaseous flux determined through utilization of the sensing data and current output ionized gaseous flux, further wherein the difference is to be minimized by the dynamic adjustment of the number of flux characteristics. However, Chen teaches wherein the adjustment is based on a difference between a selected desired output ionized gaseous flux determined through utilization of the sensing data and current output ionized gaseous flux (refer to claim 1), further wherein the difference is to be minimized by the dynamic adjustment of the number of flux characteristics (refer to claim 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Akhmetzyanov to include the adjustment of Chen to provide the advantage of ensuring the correct supply of gas to prevent overheating.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akhmetzyanov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Balaji et al. U.S. Patent Application 2014/0196273 (hereinafter “Balaji”).
Regarding claim 5, Akhmetzyanov teaches the system claim 1; however, Akhmetzyanov does not teach the system comprising a filter or membrane dryer for the gaseous flow. However, Balaji teaches the system comprising a filter or membrane dryer (i.e. air filter 418)(fig.4) for the gaseous flow (refer to [0053]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Akhmetzyanov to include the filter of Balaji to provide the advantage of removing impurities from the system (refer to Balaji [0053]).
Regarding claim 8, Akhmetzyanov teaches the system of claim 1; however, Akhmetzyanov does not teach the system comprising at least one element selected from the group consisting of: power supply unit positioned between the programmable module and control and monitoring equipment or at least partially integrated with either; a number of wired and/or wireless communications links between the control and monitoring equipment and the programmable module, other element of the system, and/or external monitoring or control system or device; and processing device for processing data, memory for storing data, and a communications adapter for exchanging data. However, Balaji teaches the system comprising at least one element selected from the group consisting of: power supply unit positioned between the programmable module and control and monitoring equipment or at least partially integrated with either; a number of wired and/or wireless communications links between the control and monitoring equipment and the programmable module, other element of the system, and/or external monitoring or control system or device (refer to [0048]); and processing device (i.e. CPU 406)(fig.4) for processing data (refer to [0048]), memory for storing data (inherent)(a CPU inherently has a memory), and a communications adapter for exchanging data (refer to [0048]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Akhmetzyanov to include the elements of Balaji to provide the advantage of using common elements for a control system.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akhmetzyanov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beumers et al. German Patent Document DE 102017128919 A1 (hereinafter “Beumers”).
Regarding claim 6, Akhmetzyanov teaches the system of claim 1; however, Akhmetzyanov does not teach the system comprising a cooling unit for the gaseous flow configured to produce temperature falling within a range between about +15°C and about -30°C for the gaseous flow. However, Beumers teaches the system comprising a cooling unit for the gaseous flow (i.e. heat exchangers 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Akhmetzyanov to include the cooling unit of Beumers to provide the advantage of providing cooling to the entire system to prevent overheating of all of the components of the system. However, Akhmetzyanov and Beumers do not teach the cooling unit configured to produce temperature falling within a range between about +15°C and about -30°C for the gaseous flow. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cooling unit configured to produce temperature falling within a range between about +15°C and about -30°C for the gaseous flow, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Akhmetzyanov and Beumers to include the cooling unit configured to produce temperature falling within a range between about +15°C and about -30°C for the gaseous flow to provide the advantage of providing sufficient cooling to the system based upon the needs of each component.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights