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, 11-14, 22, and 24-26, including those claims depending therefrom including claims 2-10, 15-21, 23, and 27, 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 phrase “major part” is indefinite for the use of the relative term “major.” For the purpose of examination, this will merely be considered a “
Regarding claims 13, 14, 25, 26, the use of “preferably” renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, the claimed “hydraulically loadable in common” is indefinite as to what “in common” means regarding “hydraulically loadable.” Applicant should revise to make clearer what “in common” means (ex. simultaneously).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, the phrase “with the help of” is indefinite in regards to the claim. The term “help” is relative and ill-defined. Applicant is advised to either just remove “the help,” such as “are spring-biased with the
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Savoie (DE102007007161A1).
Regarding claim 1, Savoie (DE102007007161A1) discloses a retainer (base plate 78) for the processing of optical workpieces (lens L), which each have two workpiece surfaces and a workpiece edge therebetween, comprising
a housing (block ring 90, ring 120, block ring 90) with a holding arrangement (workpiece side 62) for a workpiece (lens L) to be processed as well as a support arrangement (pins 114) therefor, [wherein the support arrangement] comprises a plurality of pins (pins 114) accommodated in a chamber (area created within sleeve 128) bounded by the housing (block ring 90, ring 120, block ring 90), which for at least the major part are separately longitudinally displaceable (“which has a plurality of pins in their axial direction either displaceable or fixable by means of a clamping device”) [Savoie Translation; page 7, paragraph 5] and which are selectively fixable by a clamping mechanism (clamping membrane 134) against longitudinal displacement with respect to the housing (block ring 90, ring 120, block ring 90) (“the mold transfer device 58 containing a variety of pens 114 having, in its axial direction selectively displaceable or by means of a clamping device 116”) [Savoie Translation; page 13, paragraph 3] and with their pin ends (ends of pins 114) firmly supporting the workpiece (lens L), which is held by one of its workpiece surfaces (sides of lens L) at the retainer (base plate 78) by way of the holding arrangement (workpiece side 62), over an area at the workpiece surface (16) facing the pin ends (ends of pins 114) in accordance with the geometry of the surface (“This ring groove 132 can via a connection channel 136 in the guide sleeve 118 and a communicating therewith, on the outer sleeve 128 provided compressed air connection 138 optionally be pressurized with compressed air to the clamping membrane 134 radially inward against the pins 114 to squeeze, so that the pins 114 with their cross-section hexagonal sections together and by means of the clamping membrane 134 opposite the guide sleeve 118 be held frictionally.”) [Savoie Translation; page 13, final paragraph], wherein the clamping mechanism (clamping membrane 134) has at least one force transmission element (clamping membrane 134) which is movable with respect to the pins (pins 114) by forces able to be applied by fluid so as to selectively clamp the pins (pins 114) in an unactuated state of the retainer (base plate 78) or free them in an actuated state of the retainer (base plate 78) (“This ring groove 132 can via a connection channel 136 in the guide sleeve 118 and a communicating therewith, on the outer sleeve 128 provided compressed air connection 138 optionally be pressurized with compressed air to the clamping membrane 134 radially inward against the pins 114 to squeeze, so that the pins 114 with their cross-section hexagonal sections together and by means of the clamping membrane 134 opposite the guide sleeve 118 be held frictionally.”) [Savoie Translation; page 13, final paragraph].
Regarding claim 2, Savoie discloses a retainer (base plate 78) according to claim 1, wherein a hydraulically loadable actuator (source of compressed air that provides compressed air to air connection 138) is associated with the at least one force transmission element (clamping membrane 134) so as to selectively generate a transverse movement of the force transmission element (clamping membrane 134) with respect to the pins (pins 114) (“This ring groove 132 can via a connection channel 136 in the guide sleeve 118 and a communicating therewith, on the outer sleeve 128 provided compressed air connection 138 optionally be pressurized with compressed air to the clamping membrane 134 radially inward against the pins 114 to squeeze, so that the pins 114 with their cross-section hexagonal sections together and by means of the clamping membrane 134 opposite the guide sleeve 118 be held frictionally.”) [Savoie Translation; page 13, final paragraph].
Regarding claim 3, Savoie discloses a retainer (base plate 78) according to claim 2, wherein the at least one force transmission element (clamping membrane 134) is deflectable by hydraulic loading of the actuator (source of compressed air that provides compressed air to air connection 138) with respect to the housing (block ring 90, ring 120, block ring 90) of the retainer (base plate 78) against a resilient restoring force so as to clamp the pins (pins 114) (“This ring groove 132 can via a connection channel 136 in the guide sleeve 118 and a communicating therewith, on the outer sleeve 128 provided compressed air connection 138 optionally be pressurized with compressed air to the clamping membrane 134 radially inward against the pins 114 to squeeze, so that the pins 114 with their cross-section hexagonal sections together and by means of the clamping membrane 134 opposite the guide sleeve 118 be held frictionally.”) [Savoie Translation; page 13, final paragraph].
Regarding claim 27, Savoie discloses a retainer (base plate 78) according to claim 1, wherein the housing (block ring 90, ring 120, block ring 90) of the retainer (base plate 78) has a securing section (clamping surface 16 for attaching to a spindle of a processing machine (not shown)) for exchangeable securing to a workpiece spindle (12) and/or wherein the housing (block ring 90, ring 120, block ring 90) of the retainer (base plate 78) has interfaces (146, 148) for supply of the retainer (base plate 78) with vacuum and compressed air by way of a workpiece spindle (12) (Fig. 14).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savoie (DE102007007161A1) in view of Snodgrass (US-5,167,837).
Regarding claim 4, Savoie discloses a retainer (base plate 78) according to claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the hydraulically loadable actuator is a piston-cylinder arrangement (source of compressed air that provides compressed air to air connection 138) with a cylinder housing (70) and at least one piston (72).
However, Snodgrass (US-5,167,837) teaches a means for providing compressed air that is a hydraulically loadable actuator in a piston-cylinder arrangement (piston 66, cylinder 64) with a cylinder housing (cylinder 64) and at least one piston (piston 66). Since Savoie requires a pressure source, it therefore would’ve been obvious to use a piston-cylinder pump, such as shown by Snodgrass, in order to provide a source of compressed air as taught by Snodgrass, in order to provide a controlled change in pressure via pressurized air.
Regarding claim 16, Savoie discloses a retainer (base plate 78) according to claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the hydraulically loadable actuator is a piston-cylinder arrangement (source of compressed air that provides compressed air to air connection 138) with a cylinder housing (70) and at least one piston (72).
However, Snodgrass (US-5,167,837) teaches a means for providing compressed air that is a hydraulically loadable actuator in a piston-cylinder arrangement (piston 66, cylinder 64) with a cylinder housing (cylinder 64) and at least one piston (piston 66). Since Savoie requires a pressure source, it therefore would’ve been obvious to use a piston-cylinder pump, such as shown by Snodgrass, in order to provide a source of compressed air as taught by Snodgrass, in order to provide a controlled change in pressure via pressurized air.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 6-15, would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
The prior art of Savoie fails to disclose a “piston-cylinder arrangement” as claimed. While it would’ve been known to use a piston-cylinder pump to provide the compressed air desired by Savoie, it wouldn’t have been obvious to modify the piston-cylinder pump in such a way in which it is claimed in claim 5.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
The prior art of Savoie fails to disclose a “piston-cylinder arrangement” as claimed. While it would’ve been known to use a piston-cylinder pump to provide the compressed air desired by Savoie, it wouldn’t have been obvious to modify the piston-cylinder pump in such a way in which it is claimed in claim 5.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “wherein the force transmission element (clamping membrane 134) is an integral component of the cylinder housing (70) and/or wherein the force transmission element (clamping membrane 134) has a planar contact surface (84) for the pins (pins 114) (Fig. 14) and projects from the cylinder housing (70) into the chamber (area created within sleeve 128).”
Claim 19, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 20-21, would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations,
the “unactuated state of the retainer (base plate 78) is loaded with pressure by way of a pressure store (90), which in the actuated state of the retainer (base plate 78) is relieved of pressure.”
Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “a respective hydraulically loadable actuator (source of compressed air that provides compressed air to air connection 138) is associated and/or wherein the clamping mechanism (clamping membrane 134) comprises a plurality of actuators.”
Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “wherein the support arrangement (pins 114) comprises a rubber-elastic membrane (30),” and “wherein a perforation (36) as a component of the holding arrangement (workpiece side 62) is formed in the retaining section (32) of the rubber-elastic membrane (30) so that a vacuum applied to the chamber (area created within sleeve 128) is present by way of the perforation (36) on the outer side (34) of the retaining section (32) of the rubber-elastic membrane (30) for holding a workpiece (lens L) to be processed.”
Claim 24, and those claims depending therefrom including claim 25, would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “wherein the longitudinally displaceable pins (pins 114) of the support arrangement (pins 114) are spring-biased in a direction away from the housing (block ring 90, ring 120, block ring 90)” and/or “wherein the longitudinally displaceable pins (pins 114) of the support arrangement (pins 114) are spring-biased with the help of at least one pneumatic spring element (124).”
Claim 26 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations,
“wherein the pins (pins 114) bear linearly against one another by the clamping regions (88) thereof and/or the clamping regions (88) of the pins (pins 114) have an outer diameter between 1.0 millimeter and 10.0 millimeters.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE102021005202A1, US-10,926,370, and US-5,567,198 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
Prosecution Insights