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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/25/2025.
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application filed on 03/28/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-13 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
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, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamikihara (US Pub. No. 2011/0301691).
Regarding claim 1, Kamikihara discloses: a method (Figures 1-7 and see also paragraph 0027) comprising:
injecting a first material (elements 6/7 and a portion (element 6) of the first material is injected via elements 3/5 (see paragraphs 0027/0029)) into a cavity (see figure 5 annotated below showing Detail A) of a workpiece (element 10), wherein the workpiece comprises one or more interior walls (see figure 5 annotated below showing a selected one or more interior walls (Detail B) that necessarily go around the entire circumference in order to form the cavity and also bounds the smaller cavities that go through the workpiece) that form the cavity;
encasing the workpiece in a vessel (element 4); and
transferring energy, via the vessel, to the first material in the cavity such that the first material abrades the one or more interior walls of the workpiece (see paragraphs 0032/0038-0039 and see figure 5 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
754
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kamikihara discloses: the method of claim 1, further comprising: sealing openings of the cavity of the workpiece after injecting the first material so that the workpiece holds the first material inside the cavity (see figure 5 annotated above showing the workpiece (element 10) which comprises the cavity (Detail A) already having the first material (elements 6/7) and having the first material sealed off from the other leftover first material via element 12, thus sealing openings of the cavity after injecting the first material so that the workpiece holds the first material inside the cavity).
Regarding claim 10, Kamikihara discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the abrading the one or more interior walls comprises uniformly texturizing a surface of the one or more interior walls of the workpiece (see figure 5 and see also paragraphs 0038-0040), and wherein the uniformly texturizing comprises one of restoring a pre-existing texture on the surface, creating a new texture on the surface, or polishing the surface (see paragraph 0039 where the prior art discloses utilizing the device in order for the “exposed surfaces” of the workpiece to be “effectively polished”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US Patent No. 6,227,942) in view of Kamikihara (US Pub. No. 2011/0301691).
Regarding claim 1, Hoffman discloses: a method (Figures 1-3 and see also col. 4, ll. 23-34) comprising:
a first material (element 10) into a workpiece (element 15), wherein the workpiece comprises one or more walls (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A);
encasing the workpiece in a vessel (element 13); and
transferring energy, via the vessel, to the first material such that the first material abrades the one or more walls of the workpiece (see col. 4, ll. 35-53).
PNG
media_image2.png
758
759
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Hoffman shows the first material (element 10) in the vessel (element 13) which abrades an external surface of the workpiece (see figure 1). However, Hoffman appears to be silent wherein the method includes injecting the first material into a cavity of the workpiece, wherein the workpiece comprises one or more interior walls that form the cavity, and transferring energy, via the vessel, to the first material in the cavity such that the first material abrades the one or more interior walls of the workpiece.
Kamikihara is also concerned in providing a method (Figures 1-7 and see also paragraph 0027) comprising injecting a first material (elements 6/7 and a portion (element 6) of the first material is injected via elements 3/5 (see paragraphs 0027/0029)) into a cavity (see figure 5 annotated below showing Detail A) of a workpiece (element 10), wherein the workpiece comprises one or more interior walls (see figure 5 annotated below showing a selected one or more interior walls (Detail B) that necessarily go around the entire circumference in order to form the cavity and also bounds the smaller cavities that go through the workpiece) that form the cavity (see figure 5 annotated below), and transferring energy, via the vessel, to the first material in the cavity such that the first material abrades the one or more interior walls of the workpiece (see paragraphs 0032/0038-0039 and see figure 5 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
754
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman to incorporate the teachings of Kamikihara to provide wherein the method includes injecting the first material into a cavity of the workpiece, wherein the workpiece comprises one or more interior walls that form the cavity, and transferring energy, via the vessel, to the first material in the cavity such that the first material abrades the one or more interior walls of the workpiece. The resultant combination would have the circular workpiece having one or more internal walls forming a cavity of the workpiece of Kamikihara now residing in the vessel of Hoffman in order to be treated. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that treating a surface via injecting a first material to a desired workpiece including a workpiece having one or more internal walls that form a cavity would necessarily provide the predictable result of utilizing the first material in finishing process in order to abrade and/or polish the surface of the workpiece to a desired finished.
Regarding claim 4, Hoffman modified discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the first material comprises a ferrofluid material (see col. 4, ll. 25-26), and wherein the ferrofluid material comprises: a ferrofluid (element 17 and see also col. 4, ll. 27) mixed with one of alumina, zirconia, silicon carbide, or silicon oxide (see col. 4, ll. 25-29 where the prior art discloses element 10 (ferrofluid material) includes element 17 (ferrofluid) and an abrasive media (element 19) and see col. 4, ll. 5-11 where the prior art discloses the abrasive media can include a suitable abrasives including “garnet; emery; zirconium and titanium nitrides; zirconia; alumina; beryllium, boron, silicon, tantalum, titanium, tungsten and zirconium carbides; aluminum, tantalum, titanium and zirconium borides; boron and diamond”); or a ferrofluid mixed with iron particles coated with one of alumina, zirconia, silicon carbide, or silicon oxide.
Regarding claim 9, Hoffman modified discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the transferring energy comprises simultaneously applying an electromagnetic field to the workpiece and rotating the vessel (see col. 6, ll. 5-37), wherein the first material comprises an abrasive (element 19), and wherein the electromagnetic field causes the first material to abrade the one or more interior walls of the workpiece with the abrasive (see col. 4, ll. 35-53 where the prior art discloses )).
Furthermore, Hoffman modified discloses the first material (element 10) as a ferrofluid material having a ferrofluid mixture of a ferro fluid (element 17) and an abrasive (element 19) (see col. 4, ll. 26-27) in order to abrade the workpiece (see col. 4, ll. 46-53). However, Hoffman modified appears to be silent wherein the first material comprises ferrous particles coated with the abrasive coating and the wherein the electromagnetic field causes the first material to abrade the one or more interior walls of the workpiece with the abrasive the ferrous particles.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hoffman to provide wherein the first material comprises ferrous particles coated with the abrasive coating, since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for can intended use involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art providing a known media for abrading a workpiece including the claimed ferrous particles coated with the abrasive coating would necessarily provide the predictable result of abrading a surface of the workpiece at multiple different locations in order to obtain a desired finish (See MPEP 2144.07). Thus, the prior art of Hoffman modified would necessarily be capable of having the electromagnetic field causes the first material to abrade the one or more interior walls of the workpiece with the abrasive the ferrous particles, as recited. Lastly, the applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed first material being a ferrous particles coated with an abrasive coating provides any unexpected result, indicating simply that the abrasive material “may comprise” Al2O3 and/or SiC coatings of ferrous particles and additionally offers other acceptable forms of the first material (see paragraph 0024 of the speciation).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US Patent No. 6,227,942) in view of Kamikihara (US Pub. No. 2011/0301691) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Musschoot (US Patent No. 4,709,507).
Regarding claim 2, Hoffman modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1 and further discloses an alternate embodiment (see col. 6, ll. 39-42) of vibrating the vessel (element 13) in order to add additional motion (i.e. transferring energy) to the workpiece relative to the finishing material (i.e. first material). However, Hoffman modified appears to be silent wherein the transferring energy comprises: powering a linear motor; or powering a rotary motor.
Musschoot is also concerned in providing a method (Figures 1-8 and see also col. 2, ll. 26-47) comprising a first material (element 188 and see also col. 4, ll. 38) interacting with a workpiece (element 190), encasing the workpiece in a vessel (element 112), and transferring energy, via the vessel, to the first material in the cavity such that the first material abrades the one or more interior walls of the workpiece (see col. 3, ll. 48-54 where the prior art discloses utilizing “a vibration generator” (element 114) in order to produce “vibratory forces” (element 182) (i.e. transferring energy) onto the vessel (element 112) in order to polish the workpiece (see col. 4, ll. 44-47). Musschoot further teaches wherein the transferring energy comprises: powering a linear motor (see col. 3, ll. 29-32 where the prior art discloses element 114 (vibration generator) that transfers energy to the vessel, comprising a motor (element 172) that operably produces a linear force (see col. 3, ll. 55-60 and col. 4, ll. 18-22), thus powering a linear motor); or powering a rotary motor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman to incorporate the teachings of Musschoot to provide wherein the transferring energy comprises: powering a linear motor; or powering a rotary motor. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a known linear motor in order to vibrate the vessel and provide an additional motion to the workpiece relative to the finishing material would necessarily increase the speed and effectiveness of polishing of the parts as disclosed by Musschoot (see col. 4, ll. 43-47).
Claim 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US Patent No. 6,227,942) in view of Kamikihara (US Pub. No. 2011/0301691) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bianco (US Patent No. 4,641,463), as evidence by Compomat (NPL article, found at https://web.archive.org/web/20141111163554/https://compomat.com/nylon-pellets/).
Regarding claim 3, Hoffman modified discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the first material comprises an abrasive grit (see col. 4, ll. 5-16) or an abrasive slurry.
However, Hoffman modified appears to be silent wherein the method further comprising: at least partially filling the vessel with a second material, wherein the second material is less abrasive than the first material.
Bianco is also concerned in providing a method (Figures 1-8 and see also col. 3, ll. 27-30) comprising encasing a workpiece (element B) with a vessel (see figure 8 showing portions of the workpiece (element B) being encased by element 25 (vessel). Bianco further teaches at least partially filling the vessel with a second material (see figure 4 showing the vessel (element 25) being partially filled with a second material (element 30) and see also col. 4, ll. 41-42 and 50-51 where the prior art discloses element 30 (second material) as “a plurality of sized abrasive pellets” and specifically being “nylon pellets”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hoffman to incorporate the teachings of Bianco to provide at least partially filling the vessel with a second material. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating an additional second material within the vessel would necessarily provide additional means of treating a surface of the workpiece in the form of nylon pellets which are known to remove burrs and to polish the surface of the workpiece without the extensive removal of metal or change in the finish as disclosed by Bianco (see col. 1, ll. 36-42).
Lastly, with respect to wherein the second material is less abrasive than the first material. The prior art of Bianco discloses the second material as “nylon pellets” (see col. 4, ll. 52-65) which is well known in the art to have extremely low abrasion, as evidence by Compomat, and further discloses that more abrasive materials can be used with “stronger abrasive materials such as aluminum oxide pellets”. The prior art of Hoffman further discloses the first material (element 10) in the form of ferrofluid finishing material (see col. 4, ll. 25-26) which includes an abrasive media (element 19) which can be any suitable abrasives (see col. 4, ll. 5-9) including “alumina” (i.e. aluminum oxide). Thus, Hoffman as further modified, would necessarily have the second material (nylon) be less abrasive than the first material (aluminum oxide), as recited.
PNG
media_image3.png
186
998
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Hoffman modified discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein: the first material comprises one of alumina, zirconia, silicon carbide, or silicon oxide (see col. 4, ll. 25-29 where the prior art discloses element 10 (first material) includes element 17 (ferrofluid) and an abrasive media (element 19) and see col. 4, ll. 5-11 where the prior art discloses the abrasive media can include a suitable abrasives including “garnet; emery; zirconium and titanium nitrides; zirconia; alumina; beryllium, boron, silicon, tantalum, titanium, tungsten and zirconium carbides; aluminum, tantalum, titanium and zirconium borides; boron and diamond”).
However, Hoffman modified appears to be silent wherein the method further comprising injecting a second material into the vessel, the first material is more abrasive than the second material, and the second material comprises one of a synthetic fluoropolymer of tetrafluoroethylene, nylon, or polyethylene.
Bianco is also concerned in providing a method (Figures 1-8 and see also col. 3, ll. 27-30) comprising encasing a workpiece (element B) with a vessel (see figure 8 showing portions of the workpiece (element B) being encased by element 25 (vessel). Bianco further teaches injecting a second material into the vessel (see col. 4, ll. 40-45 where the prior art discloses filling the vessel (element 25) with element 30 ( second material)) and the second material comprises one of a synthetic fluoropolymer of tetrafluoroethylene, nylon see col. 4, ll. 41-42 and 50-51 where the prior art discloses element 30 (second material) as “a plurality of sized abrasive pellets” and specifically being “nylon pellets”), or polyethylene.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hoffman to incorporate the teachings of Bianco to provide injecting a second material into the vessel, the first material is more abrasive than the second material and the second material comprises one of a synthetic fluoropolymer of tetrafluoroethylene, nylon, or polyethylene. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating an additional second material within the vessel would necessarily provide additional means of treating a surface of the workpiece in the form of nylon pellets which are known to remove burrs and to polish the surface of the workpiece without the extensive removal of metal or change in the finish as disclosed by Bianco (see col. 1, ll. 36-42).
Lastly, with respect to wherein the first material is more abrasive than the second material. The prior art of Bianco discloses the second material as “nylon pellets” (see col. 4, ll. 52-65) which is well known in the art to have extremely low abrasion, as evidence by Compomat, and further discloses that more abrasive materials can be used with “stronger abrasive materials such as aluminum oxide pellets”. The prior art of Hoffman further discloses the first material (element 10) in the form of ferrofluid finishing material (see col. 4, ll. 25-26) which includes an abrasive media (element 19) which can be any suitable abrasives (see col. 4, ll. 5-9) including “alumina” (i.e. aluminum oxide). Thus, Hoffman as further modified, would necessarily have the first material (aluminum oxide) is more abrasive than the second material (nylon), as recited.
PNG
media_image3.png
186
998
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikihara (US Pub. No. 2011/0301691).
Regarding claim 6, Kamikihara discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more interior walls of the workpiece form a tube (see figure 1 and see also paragraph 0030) with a diameter (see figure 5 annotated below Detail A), and wherein the tube includes one or more bends (see figure 7 showing zoomed portions of the tube having one or more bends), non-circular flow areas, or variable flow areas.
PNG
media_image4.png
704
550
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Kamikihara appears to be silent wherein the tube’s diameter is less than 13 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube’s diameter of Kamikihara et al. to be less than 13mm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed method and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the method of Kamikihara would not operate differently with the claimed cleaning head thickness. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, the applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed diameter of the tube provides any unexpected result, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be 13mm and additionally offers other acceptable diameters (see paragraph 0036 of the speciation).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US Patent No. 6,227,942) in view of Kamikihara (US Pub. No. 2011/0301691) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maekawa (US Patent No. 7,238,086).
Regarding claim 8, Hoffman modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the transferring energy comprises vibrating the vessel and periodically alternating clockwise rotations and counter-clockwise rotations of the vessel.
Hoffman further teaches an alternate embodiment (see col. 6, ll. 39-42) comprising wherein the transferring energy comprises vibrating the vessel (see col. 6, ll. 39-42 where the prior art discloses having the vessel (element 13) which contains the workpiece (element 15) be “vibrated” (transferring energy)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman to incorporate the teachings of Hoffman alternate embodiment to provide wherein the transferring energy comprises vibrating the vessel. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that vibrating the vessel would add an additional motion to the workpiece relative to the finishing material as disclosed by Hoffman (see col. 6, ll. 39-42) which would necessarily increase the speed and effectiveness of polishing of the parts.
However, Hoffman modified appears to be silent periodically alternating clockwise rotations and counter-clockwise rotations of the vessel.
Maekawa is also concerned in providing a method (Figures 1-5 and see also col. 3, ll. 9-25) comprising treating a wall of a workpiece (element 2) with a first material (see col 3, ll. 38-49) and the workpiece encased in a vessel (element 6). Maekawa further teaches periodically alternating clockwise rotations and counter-clockwise rotations of the vessel (see col. 1, ll. 57-62 where the prior art discloses the barrel pot (element 6 i.e. vessel) “is rotated” and in col. 2, ll. 15-16 where the prior art discloses is “rotated in different (forward and reverse) directions” (i.e. clockwise rotations and counter-clockwise rotations)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hoffman to incorporate the teachings of Maekawa to provide periodically alternating clockwise rotations and counter-clockwise rotations of the vessel. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that allowing the vessel to rotate at different directions would necessarily allow the surfaces of the workpiece in the vessel be polished by the agitating water, compound, and medium inside as disclosed by Maekawa (see col. 3, ll. 54-58).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US Patent No. 6,227,942) in view of Kamikihara (US Pub. No. 2011/0301691) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henry (US Pub. No. 2022/0389277).
Regarding claim 11, Hoffman modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent the method further comprising: determining a coarseness degree, of a desired texture, on a surface of the one or more interior walls of the workpiece; and based on the determining, adjusting at least one of an abrasiveness degree of the first material, a duration of the transferring energy, a movement pattern of the vessel, or a degree of the transferred energy.
Henry is also concern in providing a method (Figures 1-11 and see also paragraph 0023/0026) comprising injecting a first material (element 230 and see also paragraph 0026-0027 where the prior art discloses element 230 includes “an abrasive fluid which contains abrasive particles” and also “magnetic particles”) into a workpiece (element 210), encasing the workpiece in a vessel (element 202), and transferring energy (via combination of a magnet (element 240) with the vessel) in order to abrade the workpiece (see paragraph 0028-0029). Henry further teaches determining a coarseness degree, of a desired texture, on a surface of the one or more walls of the workpiece (see figure 9 and see also paragraphs 0062/0063 where the prior art discloses a method (element 900) for finishing including step 920 of which includes “a roughness level of the part surface is identified” (i.e. determining a coarseness degree, of a desired texture, on a surface of the workpiece)); and based on the determining, adjusting at least one of an abrasiveness degree of the first material (see paragraph 0063 where the prior art discloses after identifying a surface roughness, implementing “a finish routine” which is determined based on an identified part and detected surface roughness, further disclosing that the finish routine includes “consideration of the composition of an abrasive finishing solution” which additionally includes “a type, size and amount of abrasive particles will affect how quickly a part surface is abraded” and in paragraph 0067 the prior art discloses a step of applying the finishing sequence (i.e. finish routine) which can include steps of “changing an abrasive fluid” (i.e. adjusting at least one abrasive degree of the first material), a duration of the transferring energy, a movement pattern of the vessel, or a degree of the transferred energy.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hoffman to incorporate the teachings of Maekawa to provide the steps of determining a coarseness degree, of a desired texture, on a surface of the one or more interior walls of the workpiece; and based on the determining, adjusting at least one of an abrasiveness degree of the first material, a duration of the transferring energy, a movement pattern of the vessel, or a degree of the transferred energy. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a step of determine a desired texture of a surface of the workpiece including roughness degree would necessarily allow the user to adjust parameters of the device including the abrasiveness degree in order to control surface treatment of an area of the workpiece in order to accomplish a desired finish.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 12 recites limitations related to the method, specifically “determining an axis of a portion of the workpiece, wherein the workpiece comprises a plurality of portions, each portion having a right cylindrical shape, joined together to form an irregular shape, each portion having an axis that is a line segment joining two centers of two parallel circular bases of each right cylindrical-shaped portion and simultaneously, for at least one portion of the plurality of portions: vibrating the vessel in a direction perpendicular to an inside wall of the at least one portion of the plurality of portions; and rotating the vessel such that the workpiece rotates about the axis of the at least one portion, wherein a duration of simultaneously vibrating the vessel and rotating the vessel is proportional to a volume of the at least one portion”
Claim 13 recites limitations related to the method, specifically “determining an axis of a portion of the workpiece, wherein the workpiece comprises a plurality of portions, each portion having a right cylindrical shape, joined together to form an irregular shape, each portion having an axis that is a line segment joining two centers of two parallel circular bases of each right cylindrical-shaped portion; applying an electromagnetic field in a direction perpendicular to one or more inside walls of a portion of the plurality of portions, wherein the first material in the cavity of the workpiece comprises a ferrofluid material; rotating the vessel such that the workpiece rotates about the axis of the portion at the same time as the applying; and after a period, processing a next portion of the plurality of portions by repeating the determining, applying, and rotating until all portions of the plurality of portions are processed, wherein the period is proportional to a volume of a corresponding portion”
The prior art of Hoffman discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the vessel vibrating (see col. 6, ll. 39-42 where the prior art discloses having the vessel (element 13) which contains the workpiece (element 15) be “vibrated” (transferring energy) and applying an electromagnetic field (see col. 6, ll. 5-37) in relation with the workpiece. However, the prior art does not disclose the step of determining an axis of a portion of the workpiece wherein the workpiece comprises a plurality of portions, each portion having a right cylindrical shape, joined together to form an irregular shape (claims 12 and 13), “simultaneously, for at least one portion of the plurality of portions: vibrating the vessel in a direction perpendicular to an inside wall of the at least one portion of the plurality of portions; and rotating the vessel such that the workpiece rotates about the axis of the at least one portion, wherein a duration of simultaneously vibrating the vessel and rotating the vessel is proportional to a volume of the at least one portion” (claim 12), and “applying an electromagnetic field in a direction perpendicular to one or more inside walls of a portion of the plurality of portions, wherein the first material in the cavity of the workpiece comprises a ferrofluid material; rotating the vessel such that the workpiece rotates about the axis of the portion at the same time as the applying; and after a period, processing a next portion of the plurality of portions by repeating the determining, applying, and rotating until all portions of the plurality of portions are processed, wherein the period is proportional to a volume of a corresponding portion” (claim 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights