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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 7, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “222” has been used to designate both a channel in Fig. 8C and an extension in Fig. 8D and 8E. 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. 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.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 limitation “the connection” in the preamble lacks antecedent basis. Thus, the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “the electrode connection system” or “the system”.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the mount” lacks antecedent basis. Thus, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the workpiece” lacks antecedent basis. Thus, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-9, 11, and 13-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matt et al. (US 20190177872).
Regarding claim 1, Matt et al. teaches an electrode connection system for a sample in an electrochemical machining system, the connection system comprising:
a fixture (any one of features 50, 52, or 56 in Fig. 5 reads on the fixture) to house the sample (workpiece 14); and
an electrode (e.g., portion of contact pins 54 contacting the support plate) in electrical contact with a common return path (i.e., through the power source 20) for current from an electrolyte solution to flow through the sample.
Regarding claim 2, Matt et al. teaches a metal workpiece (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Matt et al. teaches a mount (e.g., support plate 50, Fig. 5, reads on the mount) to support the sample, the mount being housed within the fixture (i.e., since support plate 50 is on top and within the width of base plate 52 or bearing plate 56, it reads on being housed within the fixture).
Regarding claims 6-7, Matt et al. teaches a post to position the electrode for electrical contact with the sample (the elongated, rod portion of contact pins 54 and Fig. 5 broadly reads on a post). Since a contact pin provide electrical contact to the workpiece (paragraph 102), it is inherently made of an electrically conductive material.
Regarding claim 9, Matt et al. teaches a biasing element (i.e., spring under contact pins 54, Fig. 5) to force the electrode to make physical and electrical contact with the workpiece.
Regarding claim 10, Matt et al. teaches the electrode (i.e., tip portion of contact pins 54) is configured to extend through a portion of the mount (i.e., contact pins 54 is partially extended into the support plate) via an opening to make physical and electrical contact with the sample. It is noted that neither the current claim or claim 1 positively recites a mount.
Regarding claim 13, Matt et al. teaches a stage (i.e., bearing plate 56) configured to support the sample. In the instant claim, support plate 50 is interpreted to read on the fixture in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Matt et al. teaches a stage (i.e., bearing plate 56) is in electrical contact with the common return path and the sample since it is electrically connected to power source 20. In the instant claim, support plate 50 is interpreted to read on the fixture in claim 1.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ronald (US 3386907).
Regarding claim 1, Ronald teaches an electrode connection system for a sample in an electrochemical machining system, the connection system comprising:
a fixture (i.e., bolster 25; Figs. 2-3) to house the sample (workpiece 10); and
an electrode (e.g., electrical contact to the bolster in Fig. 1 from the power supply 21) in electrical contact with a common return path (i.e., through the power supply 21) for current from an electrolyte solution to flow through the sample.
Regarding claim 2, Ronald teaches a conductive workpiece (column 3, lines 17-18).
Regarding claim 3, Ronald teaches a mount (e.g., clamps 26 with bolts in Fig. 1 broadly read on the mount) to support the sample, the mount being housed within the fixture (i.e., since clamps 26 with bolts are on top and within the width of bolster 25, they reads on being housed within the fixture).
Regarding claim 4, Ronald teaches wherein the fixture (bolster 25) comprises an electrically conductive material (column 3, line 17-18), the common return path channeling current through the sample, the electrode, and the fixture.
Claims 1, 2, 13, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrews (US 3403084).
Regarding claim 1, Andrews teaches an electrode connection system for a sample in an electrochemical machining system, the connection system comprising:
a fixture (i.e., holding fixture 40; Fig. 7) to house the sample (workpiece 20); and
an electrode (e.g., electrical contact to the workpiece in Fig. 1 from the power source 38) in electrical contact with a common return path (i.e., through the power source 38) for current from an electrolyte solution to flow through the sample.
Regarding claim 2, Andrews teaches a conductive workpiece (column 1, lines 13-15).
Regarding claim 13, Andrews teaches a stage (i.e., indexing table 41, Fig. 7) configured to support the sample or the fixture.
Regarding claim 15, Andrews teaches an electrochemical machining system for machining a surface of a sample, the system comprising:
a nozzle (i.e., nozzle 26 in tool 18, Figs. 1, 7) configured to direct a jet of an electrolyte solution towards the surface of the sample, wherein an electrical charge is applied to the nozzle (i.e., the nozzle is connected to the cathode of the power source);
a fixture (i.e., holding fixture 40) to house the sample;
a stage (i.e., indexing table 41) in electrical contact with the sample or the fixture; and
a common return path (i.e., the workpiece and the nozzle are connected to the power source and thus form a common return path) in electrical contact with the stage to allow the electrical charge to flow from the electrolyte solution to the common return path via the sample.
Regarding claim 18, Andrews teaches a chamber (i.e., enclosure 42) to house the workpiece.
Regarding claim 20, Andrews inherently teaches an electrode in contact with the common return path and the sample since the workpiece is electrically connected to the power source.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (US 3403084) in view of Ronald (US 3386907).
Regarding claim 3, Andrews not explicitly teach a mount to support the workpiece. However, Ronald teaches a mount (shown in the annotated figure below) house within the fixture (i.e., since the clamps 26 with bolts is on top and within the width of bolster 25, it reads on being housed within the fixture).
PNG
media_image1.png
1512
1242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, slab 28 and/or sponge rubber 29 (Figs. 2-3) can be interpreted to read on the mount. Slab 28 and sponge rubber 29 function to support the slab 28 across the recess 27 in position to contact against the workpiece 10 (column 3, lines 30-34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the electrode connection system of Andrews by incorporating the mount of Ronald because it would help further secure and support the workpiece for the machining process.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Andrews does not explicitly teach the fixture comprising an electrically conductive material. Ronald teaches bolster 25 that is made of an electrically conductive material to provide an anodic potential to the workpiece (column 3, line 17-19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have modified the fixture of Andrews to comprise an electrically conductive material, as taught by Ronald, because it would provide an electrical potential to the workpiece.
Regarding claim 19, in the alternative interpretation of Ronald, slab 28 and/or sponge rubber 29 (Figs. 2-3) can be interpreted to read on the mount. Slab 28 and sponge rubber 29 function to support the slab 28 and is housed within the fixture (column 3, lines 30-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the electrode connection system of Andrews by incorporating the mount of Ronald because it would help further secure and support the workpiece for the machining process.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (US 3403084) in view of Cochran (US 6355148).
Andrews does not explicitly teach that the fixture is a ring fixture having a substantially circular shape.
Cochran teaches a system for electrochemical machining comprising a fixture for holding a circular workpiece (column 5 lines 23-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the fixture of Andrews to have a substantially circular shape, as suggested by Cochran, because it would allow the fixture to hold a circular shaped workpiece.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (US 3403084) in view of Matt et al. (US 20190177872).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Andrews does not teach a post to position the electrode for electrical contact with the workpiece and that it is electrically conductive.
Matt et al. teaches a post to position the electrode for electrical contact with the sample (the rod portion of the contact pins 54 and Fig. 5 broadly reads on a post). Since a contact pin provide electrical contact to the workpiece (paragraph 102), it is inherently made of an electrically conductive material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the system of Andrews by incorporating the electrically conductive post or contact pin of Matt et al. because such contact structure is suitable for providing electric current to the workpiece.
Regarding claim 9, Matt et al. teaches a biasing element (i.e., spring under the contact pins 54, Fig. 5) to force electrode to make physical and electrical contact with the workpiece.
Regarding claim 10, Matt et al. teaches the electrode (i.e., tip of contact pins 54) is configured to extend through a portion of the mount (i.e., contact pins 54 is partially extended into the support plate) via an opening to make physical and electrical contact with the sample. It is noted that neither the current claim or claim 1 positively recites a mount.
Regarding claim 14, Andrews teaches stage 41 (Fig. 7) but does not explicitly teach the stage is in electrical contact with the common return path and the sample. Matt et al. teaches that a stage (i.e., bearing plate 56) is in electrical contact with the common return path and the sample since it is electrically connected to power source 20.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the system of Andrews by providing an electrical contact to the stage, as taught by Matt et al., to provide electrical current to the workpiece.
Regarding claim 16, Andrews does not explicitly teach a mount to house that workpiece. However, Matt et al. teaches a mount (e.g., support plate 50, Fig. 5, reads on the mount) to support the workpiece (paragraph 99-100). The support plate 50 is electrically conductive because current supplied by the contact pins 54 is conducted through the support plate to the workpiece 14.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention incorporated the mount of Matt et al. in the system of Andrews to provide additional support to the workpiece.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (US 3403084) in view of Matt et al. (US 20190177872), and further in view of Batz et al. (US 6939448).
Andrews does not explicitly teach the post comprises an electrically insulating material.
Batz et al. teaches a contact assembly for an electrochemical plating apparatus. Batz et al. coating dielectric material 758 on an electrical contact to inhibit the solution from plating on the contact (paragraph 32; Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the electrical contact of Andrews in view of Matt et al. by forming an insulating or dielectric coating on the contact, as taught by Batz et al., to protect the electrical contact from the electrolyte.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (US 3403084) in view of Fairbourn et al. (US 20020108868).
Andrews does not explicitly teach an electrode connector (claim 11) or the specific type of connectors (claim 12).
Fairbourn et al. teaches a system for cleaning metal workpieces using a counter electrode coupled to metal workpieces. The samples of the invention were dc coupled to a counter electrode by means of a wire and alligator clips (paragraph 31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the system of Andrews by connecting the electrodes using an electrode connector such as a clip, as taught by Fairbourn et al., because it would facilitate the connection the removal of the electrical connection between the power supply and the workpiece.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights