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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because poor quality and difficult to recognize the details.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2” has been used to designate both “the rotation body and the rotation part”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the abstract and paragraph 0021, the phrase “rotation part 2” must be changed to “rotation body 2”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in lines 4-6 the phrase “a stator body exhibiting an almost cylinder shape and facing an inner face opposite to a lateral face part of the rotation part, characterized in that a lateral face of the rotation body” should be changed to “a stator body exhibiting an almost cylinder shape and an inner face facing to a lateral face part of the rotation body, wherein the lateral face of the rotation body”.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 9-10 the phrase “the concave/convex blades at each stage are each separated along a rotation axis direction of the rotation body” should be changed to “each of the concave/convex blades at each of the multi-stages are separated along the rotation axis direction of the rotation body”.
Regarding claim 2, in line 4-6 the phrase “a stator body exhibiting an almost cylinder shape and facing an inner face opposite to a lateral face part of the rotation part, characterized in that at least one surface” should be changed to “a stator body exhibiting an almost cylinder shape and an inner face facing to a lateral face part of the rotation part, wherein at least one surface”.
Regarding claim 2, in lines 9-10 the phrase “the concave/convex blades in each stage are each separated along the rotation axis direction” should be changed to “each of the concave/convex blades at each of the multi-stages are separated along the rotation axis direction”.
Regarding claim 2, in lines 9-10 the phrase “the concave/convex blades in each stage are each separated along the rotation axis direction” should be changed to “each of the concave/convex blades at each of the multi-stages are separated along the rotation axis direction”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “wherein, cavities are formed at each stage at a vicinity of boundaries of the concave/convex blades of the concave/convex blades formed to the rotation body and/or the stator body as multi-stages” should be changed to “wherein cavities are formed at each of the multi-stages at a vicinity of boundaries of the concave/convex blades formed to the rotation body and/or the stator body, and wherein the cavities are formed as multi-stages”.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “wherein the cavities are formed at a vicinity of the boundaries of concave/convex blades at each stage formed as multi-stages, and/or the cavities are formed at relative positions at a vicinity of boundaries of the concave/convex blades at each of the stages of the guiding part” should be changed to “wherein the cavities are formed at a vicinity of the boundaries of concave/convex blades at each of the multi-stages, and/or the cavities are formed at relative positions at the vicinity of boundaries of the concave/convex blades at each of stages of the guiding part, and wherein the cavities are formed as multi-stages”.
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 2 and 4 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 2, in lines 10-11 the phrase “a guiding part is formed on a surface of other one for aligning an object to be ground to guide from top to bottom” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if what is meant by “other one”; and it is unclear what is meant by “top to bottom”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “a guiding part is formed on a surface of other one for aligning an object to be ground to guide from top to bottom” as “a guiding part is formed on a surface of the rotation body for aligning an object to be ground to guide from top to bottom of the rotation body”
Claim 4 is rejected because it depends from claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cavities" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the stage" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lægdsgaard (US20160015214A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lægdsgaard discloses a grinder (abstract; fig.1: (1) and paragraphs 0106-0114) including
a rotation body (figs.1 and 6: (3)) exhibiting an almost conical shape and having a rotation axis (fig.1: (A)), the rotation axis passing a top of the almost conical shape and crossing a bottom face at a right angle (figs.1, 6 and 19), and
a grinding mechanism, the grinding mechanism having a configuration for grinding an object to be ground by a stator body (figs.1 and 6: (2)) exhibiting an almost cylinder shape and facing an inner face opposite to a lateral face part of the rotation part (fig.6),
characterized in that a lateral face of the rotation body and a surface of the inner face of the stator body comprise concave/convex blades continuing convex blades and concave part alternatively (figs.1 and 6: (10,11) and (20, 24)), the concave/convex blades are formed as multi-stages along to a rotation axis direction of the rotation body, and the concave/convex blades at each stage are each separated along a rotation axis direction of the rotation body (figs.1 and 6: stage of elements (10) stage of elements (11)) and stage of elements (20) stage of elements (24)).
Regarding claim 2, Lægdsgaard discloses a grinder (abstract; fig.1: (1) and paragraphs 0106-0114) including
a rotation body (figs.1 and 6: (3)) exhibiting an almost conical shape and having a rotation axis, the rotation axis (fig.1: (A)) passing a top of the almost conical shape and crossing a bottom face at a right angle (figs.1, 6 and 19), and
a grinding mechanism, the grinding mechanism having a configuration for grinding an object to be ground by a stator body (figs.1 and 6: (2)) exhibiting an almost cylinder shape and facing an inner face opposite to a lateral face part of the rotation part (fig.6),
characterized in that at least one surface of the lateral face of the rotation body and the inner face of the stator body opposite each other comprises concave/convex blades continuing convex blades and concave part alternatively (figs.1 and 6: (10,11) and (20, 24)), the concave/convex blades are formed as multi- stages along a rotation axis direction, the concave/convex blades in each stage are each separated along the rotation axis direction (figs.1 and 6: stage of each of the elements (10,11) and (20, 24)),
a guiding part is formed on a surface of other one for aligning an object to be ground to guide from top to bottom (paragraph 0062: a guideway).
Regarding claim 3, Lægdsgaard discloses wherein, cavities are formed at each stage at a vicinity of boundaries of the concave/convex blades of the concave/convex blades formed to the rotation body (figs.1, 3 and 6: see the cavities (8) between elements (20); and the cavities between elements (24)) and/or the stator body as multi-stages.
Regarding claim 4, Lægdsgaard discloses wherein the cavities are formed at a vicinity of the boundaries of concave/convex blades at each stage formed as multi-stages figs.1, 3 and 6: see the cavities (8) between elements (20); and the cavities between elements (24)), and/or the cavities are formed at relative positions at a vicinity of boundaries of the concave/convex blades at each of the stages of the guiding part.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725