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 Objections
Claims 2-26 are objected to because of the following informalities: “A retainer” should be “The retainer”, to avoid an antecedent error, since “A retainer” has been introduced in claim 1.
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 10-15 and 21 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.
Claims 10 and 21 recite: “the pin ends” and lacks antecedent basis since “pin ends” has not been introduced. For examination purposes, “the pin ends” has been construed as “a pin end”.
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, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafon (US 20170157739 A1) and MANDLER (DE 102004016445 B4).
Referring to claim 1: Lafon teaches a retainer (1 Fig. 1) for the processing of optical workpieces (300 Fig. 1), which each have two workpiece surfaces (concave/ convex surfaces of 300 Fig. 1) and a workpiece edge (vertical edge between concave/ convex surfaces of 300 shown in Fig. 1) therebetween, comprising a holding arrangement (holding arrangement holding 300 shown in Fig. 1) for a workpiece (300 Fig. 1) to be processed as well as a support arrangement (170, 180, 160, 150, 161, 151 Figs. 1 and 2) therefor having a rubber-elastic membrane (“rubber” [0060]), which is mounted on a housing (100 Fig. 1) and has a retaining section (section of 170 Fig. 1), on the outer side (outer side of 1 shown in Fig. 1) of which the workpiece (300 Fig. 1) can be laid over an area by one of the workpiece surfaces (concave/ convex surfaces of 300 Fig. 1) thereof, and which together with the housing (100 Fig. 1) bounds a chamber (180 Fig. 1) in which a plurality of separate longitudinally displaceable pins (160 Figs. 1-3) of the support arrangement (170, 180, 160, 150, 161, 151 Figs. 1 and 2) is received,
which pins (160 Figs. 1-3) can each be brought into contact with a pin end (pin end close to the edge of 170) at an inner side of the retaining section (section of 170 Fig. 1)
and are selectively fixable to one another by a transversely acting clamping mechanism (101 Figs. 1, 10, and 11; [0104-0106]), or blockable by an axially acting blocking mechanism (“peripheral groove 137 is designed to block the seal 170” [0089]), against longitudinal displacement with respect to the housing (100 Fig. 1) so as to firmly support the retaining section (section of 170 Fig. 1) in accordance with a geometry of the workpiece (300 Fig. 1) held by the holding arrangement (holding arrangement holding 300 shown in Fig. 1),
characterized in that the holding arrangement (holding arrangement holding 300 shown in Fig. 1) for the workpiece (300 Fig. 1) to be processed is provided in or at the retaining section (section of 170 Fig. 1) of the rubber-elastic membrane (“rubber” [0060]) and is capable of holding the workpiece (300 Fig. 1) without engaging the workpiece edge (vertical edge between concave/ convex surfaces of 300 shown in Fig. 1).
But is silent on which pins can each be brought into contact with a pin end at an inner side of the retaining section of specifically the rubber-elastic membrane.
MANDLER in an analogous retainer and teaches wherein the similar configuration pins (5 Fig. 3) can each be brought into contact with a pin end (end of 3 Fig. 3; “The upper diaphragm (3) made of rubber or similar material and disposed between the cylindrical pins (5) and the eyeglass lens (11) further enhances the uniformity of support.” [0112]) at an inner side of the retaining section (retaining section of 3 which mates with the lens 11) of specifically the rubber-elastic membrane (3 Fig. 3).
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 retainer of Lafon with the rubber-elastic membrane configuration as taught by MANDLER for the purpose of having an alternate manner of cradling the workpiece.
Referring to claim 18: Lafon as modified teaches the retainer (1 Fig. 1 of Lafon) according to claim 1, characterized in that the pins (160 Figs. 1-3 of Lafon) of the support arrangement (170, 180, 160, 150, 161, 151 Figs. 1 and 2 of Lafon) are spring-biased (spring-biased via 179 Fig. 1 of Lafon) in the direction of the retaining section (section of 170 Fig. 1) of the rubber-elastic membrane (3 Fig. 3 of MANDLER).
Referring to claim 19: Lafon as modified teaches the retainer (1 Fig. 1 of Lafon) according to claim 18, characterized in that a helical compression spring (179 Fig. 1 of Lafon) is associated with each pin (160 Fig. 1; “These compression springs 179 form mechanical return means for returning the mobile rods 160 forward,” [0067] of Lafon) of the support arrangement (170, 180, 160, 150, 161, 151 Figs. 1 and 2 of Lafon) so as to generate the spring-bias in the direction of the retaining section (section of 170 Fig. 1 of Lafon) of the rubber-elastic membrane (3 Fig. 3 of MANDLER) or that the pins (160 Fig. 1 of Lafon) of the support arrangement (170, 180, 160, 150, 161, 151 Figs. 1 and 2 of Lafon) are spring-biased in the direction of the retaining section (section of 170 Fig. 1 of Lafon) of the rubber-elastic membrane (3 Fig. 3 of MANDLER) with the help of at least one pneumatic spring element (“This raised-pressure chamber therefore forms a pneumatic return means for returning the mobile rods 160 forward” [0083]; “these return means 179, 190 are partly mechanical and partly pneumatic.” [0048] of Lafon).
Referring to claim 21: Lafon as modified teaches the retainer (10) according to claim 1, characterized in that the longitudinally displaceable pins of the support arrangement (73) are arranged in the housing (74) in a substantially hexagonal package, for which purpose the housing (74) has a guide section (96) having as seen in cross-section a substantially hexagonal opening (97) through which the pins (79) extend and/or
that the longitudinally displaceable pins (79) of the support arrangement (73) are cylindrical pins each with an offset clamping region (98) of largest diameter for clamping by the clamping mechanism (82), wherein the pins (79) bear linearly against one another by the clamping regions (98) thereof and/or
the clamping regions (98) of the pins (79) have an outer diameter between 2.5 and 4.5 millimeters and/or
that the longitudinally displaceable pins (160 Figs. 1-3 of Lafon) of the support arrangement (170, 180, 160, 150, 161, 151 Figs. 1 and 2 of Lafon) extend by the pin ends (ends of 160 Figs. 1-3 of Lafon) thereof through at least one apertured limiting plate (164 Fig. 1 of Lafon) which limits longitudinal movement (“The bottom of the cavity 135 thus forms a stop for the circlips 164 mounted on the mobile rods 160, thereby preventing the latter from being able to be extracted from the body 110” [0074] of Lafon) of the pins (160 Figs. 1-3 of Lafon) in the housing (100 Fig. 1 of Lafon).
Referring to claim 22: Lafon as modified teaches the retainer according to claim 1, characterized in that the clamping mechanism (101 Figs. 1, 10, and 11; [0104-0106] of Lafon) comprises at least one force transmission element (103 Figs. 10 and 11 of Lafon) by way of which a clamping force (“blocking state” [0105]; “release state” [0106] of Lafon) is transmissible to the pins (160 Figs. 1-3 of Lafon), which force runs from a side of the housing (100 Fig. 1 of Lafon) substantially in the direction of a center axis (center axis A1 shown in Figs. 1, 6, 9, and 11 of Lafon) of the housing (100 Fig. 1 of Lafon) and acts perpendicularly (shown perpendicularly in Fig. 11 of Lafon) to the longitudinal axes of the pins (160 Figs. 1-3 of Lafon).
Referring to claim 23: Lafon as modified teaches the retainer according to claim 22, characterized in that the force transmission element (103 Figs. 10 and 11 of Lafon) can be mechanically loaded with the clamping force by way of a least one set screw (“screwed”; “unscrewed” [0104-0106] of Lafon) mounted on the housing (100 Fig. 1 of Lafon).
Referring to claim 26: Lafon as modified teaches the retainer according to claim 1, characterized in that the housing (100 Fig. 1 of Lafon) has a securing section (10 Fig. 1 of Lafon) for exchangeable securing to a workpiece spindle (“a gripping part (10) for fixing it to a corresponding member (200) of the surfacing machine” Abstract; “if appropriate allowing it to be rotationally driven, on the machine or the apparatus.” [0011] of Lafon).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafon (US 20170157739 A1) and MANDLER (DE 102004016445 B4), as applied above in claim 19, and in further view of Lloyd (US 20160202224 A1).
Referring to claim 20: Lafon as modified teaches the retainer (10) according to claim 19, characterized in that the pneumatic spring element (“This raised-pressure chamber therefore forms a pneumatic return means for returning the mobile rods 160 forward” [0083] of Lafon) comprises a valve (“pneumatic valve” [0016] of Lafon) which, when the pneumatic spring element (“This raised-pressure chamber therefore forms a pneumatic return means for returning the mobile rods 160 forward” [0083]; “these return means 179, 190 are partly mechanical and partly pneumatic.” [0048] of Lafon) is acted on by pressure, closes ([0083-0085]) for contact of the pins (160 Fig. 1 of Lafon) of the support arrangement (170, 180, 160, 150, 161, 151 Figs. 1 and 2 of Lafon) with the retaining section (section of 170 Fig. 1 of Lafon) of the rubber-elastic membrane (3 Fig. 3 of MANDLER) and which, when the pneumatic spring element (“This raised-pressure chamber therefore forms a pneumatic return means for returning the mobile rods 160 forward” [0083] of Lafon) is acted on by vacuum, opens so as to apply the vacuum to the chamber (180 Fig. 1 of Lafon) bounded by the rubber-elastic membrane (3 Fig. 3 of MANDLER).
But is silent on the pneumatic spring element specifically comprising a flutter valve.
Lloyd in an analogous pressure device teaches a similar configuration spring element (“The valve 700 is held shut by spring tension and opened only when a pressure differential of the desired magnitude and direction is applied to the valve 700” [0083]) specifically comprising a flutter valve (639 Fig. 6; “A passive valve 639 may, for example, comprise a flutter valve or any of a variety of valve configurations. A passive valve 639 controlling air flow through the air passage 635 may, for example, allow air flow in one direction to ensure that the same air is not merely being vibrated back and forth over the sensor.” [0084]).
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 retainer Lafon as modified with the flutter valve as taught by Lloyd for the purpose of having an alternate manner of controlling the flow of air.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafon (US 20170157739 A1) and MANDLER (DE 102004016445 B4), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of Meschenmoser (US 9421659 B2).
Referring to claim 24: Lafon as modified teaches the retainer according to claim 1, characterized in that the rubber-elastic membrane (3 Fig. 3 of MANDLER) is supported radially outwardly of the pins (160 Figs. 1-3 of Lafon) of the support arrangement (170, 180, 160, 150, 161, 151 Figs. 1 and 2 of Lafon), which bear against the retaining section (section of 170 Fig. 1 of Lafon), but is silent on by at least one resiliently deformable shaped part, particularly a shaped ring of foam material.
Meschenmoser in an analogous retainer teaches at least one resiliently deformable shaped part (724” Fig. 13; “clamping ring 724″” Col. 18, line 28), particularly a shaped ring of foam material (“a foam ring positioned on the main body” Col. 4, line 65; “The inventors have found that thermo-plastic elastomers in particular are highly suitable as the material for a clamping ring” Col. 5, lines 9-11).
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 retainer Lafon as modified with the foam ring as taught by Meschenmoser for the purpose of having a material structure capable of maintaining a proper seal which can support the workpiece without causing damage.
Claim 25 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafon (US 20170157739 A1) and MANDLER (DE 102004016445 B4), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of Granziera (US 7066794 B2).
Referring to claim 25: Lafon as modified teaches the retainer according to claim 1, but is silent on characterized in that the rubber-elastic membrane is made of NBR or EPDM and/or has a hardness according to Shore A between 45 and 90 and/or a material thickness greater than or equal to 1.0 and smaller than or equal to 2.5 millimeters.
Granziera in an analogous retainer teaches that the similar configuration rubber-elastic membrane (14 Fig. 1) is made of NBR or EPDM and/or has a hardness according to Shore A between 45 and 90 (“The membrane 14 is comprised of an elastomer material such as NBR (elastomer based on acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene rubber), EPDM (elastomer based on ethylene-propylene-diene rubber), or PUR (polyurethane) elastomer (e.g. Vulkollan.RTM. by Bayer), with a Shore A hardness of 45 to 70, preferably 55 to 60.” Col. 6, lines 60-65).
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 retainer of Lafon as modified with the materials as taught by Granziera for the purpose of having a suitable material which will firmly hold the workpiece and not damage it.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 16, and 17 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:
The most relevant art is: Lafon (US 20170157739 A1) and MANDLER (DE 102004016445 B4).
Referring to claim 2: Lafon as modified teaches the retainer (1 Fig. 1 of Lafon) according to claim 1, characterized in that a vacuum (“The vacuum pump on the other hand establishes a pressure of less than 0.1 bar in the reduced-pressure chamber 180,” [0112] of Lafon) can be applied to the chamber (180 Fig. 1 of Lafon) in the housing (100 Fig. 1 of Lafon), but is silent on a perforation as a component of the holding arrangement is formed in the retaining section of the rubber-elastic membrane so that a vacuum applied to the chamber is present by way of the perforation on the outer side of the retaining section of the rubber-elastic membrane for holding a workpiece to be processed.
Lafon alone or in combination, does not teach, suggest, or make obvious wherein the perforations would be on the rubber-elastic membrane once modified with MANDLER.
Such a reconstruction would be extensive and there is no motivation to do so. Thus, one would only arrive at the claimed invention by using improper hindsight reasoning knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, and such a reconstruction would be improper.
Therefore claim 2 would be allowable.
Claims 3-17 would also allowable based on their dependency to claim 2 and when the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections of claims 10-15 have been overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/JOEL D CRANDALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights