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
The examiner notes that claim(s) 10-12 is/are not grouped together with claim(s) 1 as required by MPEP 608.01(m), which recites “All dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable”. The claim(s) should not be renumbered, the examiner will renumber the claim(s) should the application be allowed. The examiner notes that according to MPEP 608.01(n), the method claims of claim 10-12 is a dependent claim on claim 1 (an apparatus claim) despite being within a different statutory category.
In claim 1 and 9, consider --the turning mechanism turns, around a theta axis passing a center of the workpiece clamped by the clamp mechanism and extending in [[the]] a direction of the Z-axis
In claim 6, consider -- wherein [[the]] a moving mechanism moves the clamp mechanism with the workpiece clamped until the center axis of the workpiece and the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body coincide between a spindle and a tail included in the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body--.
In reference to the term “moving mechanism” in claims 3, 6, and 7, consider using the term --clamp moving mechanism--, as the “moving mechanism” (which actually comprises a first, second, and third moving mechanism that moves the clamp in different axes) may be confused with the “claw section moving mechanism”, or of the three moving mechanisms that it itself comprises. The examiner has determined that the specification may be amended to clarify the --clamp moving mechanism-- as well without introducing new matter.
In claim 10, consider -- A deviation amount correction method of using the workpiece conveyance apparatus according to claim 1 for correcting a deviation amount of the clamped columnar workpiece with respect to the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body the crystal plane orientation of the workpiece clamped and located in a reference position in a state in which the spindle pipe sleeve of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body is in contact with a top side end face of the columnar workpiece columnar workpiece and [[a]] the crystal plane orientation of the workpiece rotated a predetermined angle from the reference position and outputting [[a]] the correction value for correcting [[a]] the deviation amount of the crystal axis of the workpiece with respect to the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body; and a deviation amount correction step of controlling the turning mechanism such that the deviation amount is eliminated--
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“turning mechanism” in claims 1, 9 ,10, 12, corresponding to a motor for turning 260 (or the equivalents of worm gear, a wheel gear, and a general-purpose motor, provided in [0075]),
“claw section moving mechanism” in claim 2, corresponding to claw section moving mechanism M250, including a motor 255
“moving mechanism” in claims 3, 6, 7, corresponding to a moving mechanism that includes a “first moving mechanism” M220, that includes guide rails 223a and 223b, the ball screw 224, and the driving motor 225; a “second moving mechanism” M230 that includes guide rails 231a and 231b, the ball screw 232, and the driving motor 233, and “third moving mechanism” M240 that includes guide rails 241a and 241b, the ball screw, and the driving motor 242. The examiner notes that “first moving mechanism”, “second moving mechanism” and “third moving mechanism” in claim 3 invokes a 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and is interpreted as described above.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The limitation “clamp mechanism”, despite containing a nonce term “mechanism” is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because independent claims 1 and 9 contain sufficient structure (claw sections) to perform any associated functionality. The limitation “X-ray apparatus” was determined to be sufficiently descriptive in independent claims 1 and 9, depite the nonce term “apparatus” as the term “X-ray” is sufficient to perform the claimed functionality, and is thus not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Additionally, in independent claim 9, the limitation “workpiece conveyance apparatus” was adequately described, despite the recitation of a nonce term “apparatus”, and is thus not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kohinata (US 20260001186 A1, effectively filed Aug. 26, 2022 as evidenced by the support of the disclosure and claims by priority document JP2022-134571 and PCT document WO 2024042829 A1, with translations attached; all references are to the US publication).
With respect to claim 1, Kohinata discloses: A workpiece conveyance apparatus that conveys a columnar workpiece to be machined to a cylindrical grinding apparatus main body (the conveyance apparatus is turn section 32, fig. 3; [0068], which can receive a workpiece [monocrystal T1] from a rotation section 311, fig. 3 [part of a grinding apparatus main body] and then return it to such after adjustment as in [0076], the rotation section 311 is part of a cylindrical grinding apparatus 31, fig. 3, [0068-0069]), the workpiece conveyance apparatus comprising:
a clamp mechanism including a pair of claw sections that clamps the workpiece (clamp mechanism including claws 322, figs. 3-4, that clamps workpiece T1, as in [0078]);
a turning mechanism configured to turn the clamp mechanism in a state of clamping the workpiece (turning mechanism as 324, fig. 4; [0078], turn driver 324 as 112(f) equivalent to a motor for turning the clamp); and
an X-ray apparatus configured to measure a crystal plane orientation of the workpiece clamped between a spindle pipe sleeve and a tail pipe sleeve of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body in a state in which a center axis of the workpiece and a rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body coincide (x-ray apparatus 331, fig. 3, [0080-0081], as part of an orientation measuring section 33, fig. 3, which measures a plane orientation M1, which is a crystal plane orientation in [0006], and the workpiece is clamped between a spindle pipe sleeve [left side instance of chuck 315, fig. 3] and a tail pipe sleeve [right side instance of 315, fig. 3], as the x-ray measures while being held by rotation section 311 in [0080], and the rotation section includes the chucks 315 in [0070-0071]; examiner notes that the examiner interprets the instant disclosure to provide for an x-ray unit 150 that is separate from that of the “workpiece conveyance mechanism” itself and the interpretation of the prior art is consistent with the instant disclosure, if the applicant deems that clarification of the claim is necessary, the applicant is encouraged to do so) and output a correction value for correcting a deviation amount of a crystal axis of the workpiece with respect to the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body ([0088] provides that the section 33 outputs a crystal orientation, which is the “turning angle” referenced in [0021,0091], that would later be used for correction in fig. 8, [0094-0095]), wherein
when the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body is represented as an X axis (axis C, fig. 3; [0070]), an axis orthogonal to the X axis is represented as a Y axis (Y axis is the rear-front axis shown in the coordinate system at upper left of fig. 3), and an axis orthogonal to a plane including the X axis and the Y axis is represented as a Z axis (the up-down axis, along D1, fig. 4, [0076]),
the turning mechanism turns, around a theta axis passing a center of the workpiece clamped by the clamp mechanism and extending in the Z-axis direction (the turning mechanism turns along axis D1, fig. 4, [0076], that passes through the center of the workpiece T1, fig. 4, which is in the Z-axis [up-down] direction, see also axis D1 in fig. 3), the clamp mechanism in the state of clamping the workpiece by an angle corresponding to the correction value (the workpiece is turned by angle tehta1 in [0094,0101], through the driver/turning mechanism 324, fig. 4, while it is being held by claws 322).
With respect to claim 2, Kohinata discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses the clamp mechanism includes a claw section moving mechanism that moves the pair of claw sections in a direction in which the pair of claw sections approaches each other or a direction in which the pair of claw sections separates from each other (arm driver 323, fig. 4; [0078], the driver is 112(f) equivalent to a motor to draw the claws together); the claw section moving mechanism clamps the workpiece by, in the Y-axis direction, moving the pair of claw sections in a direction in which the pair of claw sections approaches each other and bringing the pair of claw sections into contact with an outer peripheral surface of the workpiece (as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the y-axis is the front-rear in fig. 3, in this case in fig. 4, the arrows that indicate the movement of claws 322 are in the same front-rear coordinate system, and the claws contact/grip the outer periphery of the workpiece T1, as in [0100] and in fig. 4).
With respect to claim 8, Kohinata discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the pair of claw sections clamps a center of length of the workpiece (the claws 322, fig. 3 clamp a center of the length of the workpiece T1, along axis C as shown in fig. 3).
With respect to claim 9, Kohinata discloses: A cylindrical grinding apparatus (3, fig. 3, [0068) comprising:
a cylindrical grinding apparatus main body (31, fig. 3, [0068-0069]);
and a workpiece conveyance apparatus configured to convey a columnar workpiece to be machined to the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body (the conveyance apparatus is turn section 32, fig. 3; [0068], which can receive a workpiece [monocrystal T1] from a rotation section 311, fig. 3, and then return it to such after adjustment as in [0076]), the workpiece conveyance apparatus including:
a clamp mechanism including a pair of claw sections that clamps the workpiece (clamp mechanism including claws 322, figs. 3-4, that clamps workpiece T1, as in [0078]);
a turning mechanism configured to turn the clamp mechanism in a state of clamping the workpiece (turning mechanism as 324, fig. 4; [0078], turn driver 324 as 112(f) equivalent to a motor for turning the clamp);
and an X-ray apparatus configured to measure a crystal plane orientation of the workpiece clamped between a spindle pipe sleeve and a tail pipe sleeve of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body in a state in which a center axis of the workpiece and a rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body coincide (x-ray apparatus 331, fig. 3, [0080-0081], as part of an orientation measuring section 33, fig. 3, which measures a plane orientation M1, which is a crystal plane orientation in [0006], and the workpiece is clamped between a spindle pipe sleeve [left side instance of chuck 315, fig. 3] and a tail pipe sleeve [right side instance of 315, fig. 3], as the x-ray measures while being held by rotation section 311 in [0080], and the rotation section includes the chucks 315 in [0070-0071]; examiner notes that the examiner interprets the instant disclosure to provide for an x-ray unit 150 that is separate from that of the “workpiece conveyance mechanism” and the interpretation of the prior art is consistent with the instant disclosure, if the applicant deems that clarification of the claim is necessary, the applicant is encouraged to do so) and output a correction value for correcting a deviation amount of a crystal axis of the workpiece with respect to the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body ([0088] provides that the section 33 outputs a crystal orientation, which is the “turning angle” referenced in [0021,0091], that would later be used for correction in fig. 8, [0094-0095]);
wherein when the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body is represented as an X axis (axis C, fig. 3; [0070]), an axis orthogonal to the X axis is represented as a Y axis (Y axis is the rear-front axis shown in the coordinate system at upper left of fig. 3), and an axis orthogonal to a plane including the X axis and the Y axis is represented as a Z axis, (the up-down axis, along D1, fig. 4, [0076]),
the turning mechanism turns, around a theta axis passing a center of the workpiece clamped by the clamp mechanism and extending in the Z-axis direction (the turning mechanism turns along axis D1, fig. 4, [0076], that passes through the center of the workpiece T1, fig. 4, which is in the Z-axis [up-down] direction, see also axis D1 in fig. 3), the clamp mechanism in the state of clamping the workpiece by an angle corresponding to the correction value (the workpiece is turned by angle tehta1 in [0094,0101], through the driver/turning mechanism 324, fig. 4, while it is being held by claws 322).
With respect to claim 10, Kohinata discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses: A deviation amount correction method for correcting a deviation amount of the clamped workpiece with respect to the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body (Kohinata generally describes a method of correcting an orientation of a clamped monocrystalline crystal in [0021], where the workpiece is clamped by claws 322, figs. 3-4, as in [0101] and is also clamped, during certain processing steps between a spindle pipe sleeve [left instance of 315, fig. 3, [0071], and a tail pipe sleeve left instance of 315, fig. 3, [0071]) and wherein the deviation is adjusted in [0099], relative to a center axis of rotation C in [0103]) by using the workpiece conveyance apparatus according to claim 1 (the apparatus is addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above, along with aspects describing the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body, and the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein),
the deviation amount correction method comprising:
a measurement step of measuring a crystal plane orientation ([0080-0081] provides for x-ray measurement of a plane orientation, the x-ray measuring a crystal plane orientation described in the rejection of claim 1 above) of the workpiece clamped and located in a reference position (the workpiece is held by rotation section 311, fig. 3, as in [0080], during measurement) in a state in which the spindle pipe sleeve of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body is in contact with a top side end face of the columnar workpiece to be machined (there is a spindle pipe sleeve as left instance of 315, fig. 3, [0071], which holds/clamps the workpiece T1, the top side end face of the columnar cylinder workpiece T1 being the left side abutting against 315) and the tail pipe sleeve of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body is in contact with a bottom side end face of the workpiece (there is a tail pipe sleeve as right instance of 315, fig. 3, [0071], which holds/clamps the workpiece T1, the bottom side end face of the columnar cylinder workpiece T1 being the right side abutting against 315) and a crystal plane orientation of the workpiece rotated a predetermined angle from the reference position ([0098,0100] provides for rotation by a specific angle phi1, the angle predetermined before rotation in the step at [0094], examiner notes that the method claim does not require steps to be in a specific order) and outputting a correction value for correcting a deviation amount of the crystal axis of the workpiece with respect to the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body ([0088] provides that the section 33 outputs a crystal orientation, which is the “turning angle” referenced in [0021,0091], that would later be used for correction in fig. 8, [0094-0095]),
and a deviation amount correction step of controlling the turning mechanism such that the deviation amount is eliminated (turning mechanism as 324, fig. 4; [0078], turn driver 324 as 112(f) equivalent to a motor for turning the clamp, this causes the workpiece to be turned by angle tehta1 in [0094,0101], through the driver/turning mechanism 324, fig. 4, while it is being held by claws 322; the result as in [0102] is that the crystal axis is coincident with the axis of grinding);
With respect to claim 12, Kohinata discloses the limitations of claim 10 above, and further discloses: wherein the deviation amount is a deviation angle of the crystal axis of the workpiece with respect to the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body (the workpiece is turned by a deviation angle theta1 relative to the attitude of the monocrystal as in [0102], such that it would be coincident the rotation axis C of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body, the attitude is with respect to a target plane in [0021], the target plane Mw is described in [0006,0060] as the crystal axis), and in the deviation amount correction step, the turning mechanism is controlled such that the clamp mechanism with the workpiece clamped turns by the deviation angle ([0101]).
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.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohinata (US 20260001186 A1) and further in view of Kikuchi (JP 2022050851 A).
With respect to claim 3, Kohinata discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the moving mechanism includes: a first moving mechanism configured to move the clamp mechanism in the Z-axis direction; a second moving mechanism configured to move the clamp mechanism and the first moving mechanism in the Y-axis direction; and a third moving mechanism configured to move the clamp mechanism, the first moving mechanism, and the second moving mechanism in the X-axis direction. Kohinata however discloses that the clamp mechanism can move in the Z-axis (through driver 324, fig. 4; [0078], which moves up and down the clamps/claws 322, below it, [0078]), the X and Y axes through “a horizontal-turn-unit moving section” ([0076, 0078], which moves the clamp/claws 322 together).
Kikuchi, in the same field of endeavor, as related to abrading ([0001]), teaches of a first moving mechanism configured to move the clamp mechanism in the Z-axis direction (first moving mechanism M240, fig. 7; [0053-0057], 112(f) equivalent by including guide rails, ball screw and driving motor as in [0057], and moves the clamp 250, fig. 7, as in [0058], and on frame 230 as shown in fig. 7, [0055]); a second moving mechanism configured to move the clamp mechanism and the first moving mechanism in the Y-axis direction (second moving mechanism M230, fig. 6, [0048-0052], 112(f) equivalent by including guide rails, ball screw, and driving motor as in [0052], and moves the first moving mechanism which is on frame 230, as in [0050]; the second moving mechanism is on frame 220, as in fig. 6; [0051]); and a third moving mechanism configured to move the clamp mechanism, the first moving mechanism, and the second moving mechanism in the X-axis direction (third moving mechanism is M220, fig. 5, [0043-0047], 112(f) equivalent by including guide rails, ball screw, and driving motor as in [0046], and moves the clamp mechanism, the first moving mechanism, and the second moving mechanism, because as those elements are arranged directly or indirectly on frame 220, and is moved by the third moving mechanism as in [0047]).The X, Y and Z axes taught by Kikuchi (see fig. 1 and 3), are consistent with the X, Y and Z axes of Kohinata that were mapped in the rejection of claim 1 (see axes relative to spindle 101, tail 102, rotation axis Ax, and workpiece W, fig. 3; [0036-0037]) , Kikuchi teaches that this movement mechanism allows “easy alignment of the central axis of cylindrical workpieces of various diameters and lengths (length in the central axis direction) with the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding device”) ([0019])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the movement mechanism of Kikuchi to have moved the clamp mechanism of Kohinata in the X, Y and Z, axes for the purpose of easy alignment of the workpiece.
With respect to claim 4, Kohinata discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the pair of claw sections respectively includes first contact sections that come into contact with lower parts of the workpiece when the pair of claw sections has moved in a direction in which the pair of claw sections approaches each other and second contact sections that come into contact with upper parts of the workpiece when the pair of claw sections has moved in the direction in which the pair of claw sections approaches each other.
Kikuchi, in the same field of endeavor, as related to abrading ([0001]), teaches of a pair of claw sections (claws 251a, 251b, fig. 9, [0060]) that includes first contact sections that come into contact with lower parts of the workpiece when the pair of claw sections has moved in a direction in which the pair of claw sections approaches each other (first contact sections 256a, on both claws, figs. 9-10, [0066], tapered as in [0067]) and second contact sections that come into contact with upper parts of the workpiece when the pair of claw sections has moved in the direction in which the pair of claw sections approaches each other (second contact sections 256b, figs. 9-10, on both claws, [0066], tapered as in [0067]). Kikuchi teaches this allows consistent clamping regardless of the workpiece diameter ([0069]), and allows stable transport ([0106-0107]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the claw sections of Kikuchi in Kohinata for consistent clamping and stable transport.
With respect to claim 5, Kohinata, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, and further teaches wherein the pair of claw sections respectively includes taper surfaces opened in a V shape toward each other, the taper surfaces functioning as the first contact sections and the second contact sections (Kikuchi, see tapered arrangement in first contact sections 256a, and second contact sections 256b, on both claws, figs. 9-10, [0066], tapered as in [0067]).
With respect to claim 6, Kohinata discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the moving mechanism (interpreted as constant with the 112(f) note above) moves the clamp mechanism with the workpiece clamped until the center axis of the workpiece and the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body coincide between a spindle and a tail included in the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body. Kohinata however discloses that the clamp mechanism can move in the Z-axis (through driver 324, fig. 4; [0078], which moves up and down the clamps/claws 322, below it, [0078]), the X and Y axes through “a horizontal-turn-unit moving section” ([0076, 0078], which moves the clamp/claws 322).
Kikuchi, in the same field of endeavor, as related to abrading ([0001]), teaches of a moving mechanism (interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to include a first, second and third moving mechanism, the first, second and third moving mechanism also interpreted under section 112(f), that can move in 3 axes as in [0021-0024]), that includes a first moving mechanism configured to move the clamp mechanism in the Z-axis direction (first moving mechanism M240, fig. 7; [0053-0057], 112(f) equivalent by including guide rails, ball screw and driving motor as in [0057], and moves the clamp 250, fig. 7, as in [0058], and on frame 230 as shown in fig. 7, [0055]); a second moving mechanism configured to move the clamp mechanism and the first moving mechanism in the Y-axis direction (second moving mechanism M230, fig. 6, [0048-0052], 112(f) equivalent by including guide rails, ball screw, and driving motor as in [0052], and moves the first moving mechanism which is on frame 230, as in [0050]; the second moving mechanism is on frame 220, as in fig. 6; [0051]); and a third moving mechanism configured to move the clamp mechanism, the first moving mechanism, and the second moving mechanism in the X-axis direction (third moving mechanism is M220, fig. 5, [0043-0047], 112(f) equivalent by including guide rails, ball screw, and driving motor as in [0046], and moves the clamp mechanism, the first moving mechanism, and the second moving mechanism, because as those elements are arranged directly or indirectly on frame 220, and is moved by the third moving mechanism as in [0047]).The X, Y and Z axes taught by Kikuchi (see fig. 1 and 3), are consistent with the X, Y and Z axes of Kohinata that were mapped in the rejection of claim 1 (see axes relative to spindle 101, tail 102, rotation axis Ax, and workpiece W, fig. 3; [0036-0037]) , Kikuchi teaches that this movement mechanism allows “easy alignment of the central axis of cylindrical workpieces of various diameters and lengths (length in the central axis direction) with the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding device” ([0019,0021-0024])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the movement mechanism of Kikuchi to have used the clamp mechanism of Kohinata in the X, Y and Z, axes for the purpose of easy alignment of the workpiece.
As for the specified functionality of wherein the moving mechanism moves the clamp mechanism with the workpiece clamped until the center axis of the workpiece and the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body coincide between a spindle and a tail included in the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body, the examiner notes that MPEP 2114 provides that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”. The apparatus of Kikuchi is configured to move the clamp mechanism with the workpiece clamped as it receives the workpiece T1, adjusts the workpiece orientation and then returns it as in [0076], [0100-0101] provides that the clamp holds the workpiece during this process, and thereafter, after adjustment, as in [0102], it is held by a spindle 314 [the left spindle 314 being interpreted as a spindle, and right instance being interpreted as a tail in fig. 3], the center axis of the workpiece and the rotation axis of the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body coincide between a spindle and a tail included in the cylindrical grinding apparatus main body, as shown in fig. 3, when the workpiece is clamped/held between the spindle and tail 314 as in [0102]. Similarly, the movement mechanism of Kikuchi is also shown to be able to perform this functionality by moving around all 3 axes (Kikuchi, [0021-0024]), and thus the functional language is met.
With respect to claim 7, Kohinata, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 6 above, and further teaches wherein the moving mechanism further moves the clamp mechanism with the workpiece clamped until one end face of the workpiece abuts the spindle (the moving mechanism, addressed in the rejection of claim 6 above, and move the clamp to abut the workpiece against the spindle given that it can move in the X, Y, and Z directions in free space, the examiner again points to MPEP 2114, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”, and Kohinata, as modified, contains all the necessary structure to perform the claimed functionality.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohinata (US 20260001186 A1) and further in view of Kamireddi (US 20130028385 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Kohinata discloses the limitations of claim 10 above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the measurement step and the deviation amount correction step are repeatedly executed until the deviation amount of the workpiece after the deviation amount correction step decreases to a set value or less.
Kamireddi, in the same field of endeavor, related to crystal ingot processing (applicable to grinding as in [0041]), teaches of repeating measurement and correction until the deviation is within a specified range ([0040] - Incorporating the x-ray goniometer into the processing machines, together with the use of adjustable tilt platforms, reduces the error that is introduced when ingots are transferred from one machine that measures the crystal orientation to another machine that processes the ingots and reduces errors introduced during the actual processing of the crystal. Crystal orientation can be repeatedly read and with continuous feedback, automatically adjusted if necessary [indicating that there is a point {set value} where it is no longer necessary for further adjustments] to ensure the final product is within the desired tolerance level). Kamireddi teaches that this reduces the manual labor needed with continuous readjustments until the position is correct ([0004] - indicative of a “set value” of a correct position), and ensures the product quality is enhanced with less time spent ([0054-0055]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Kohinata so that the measurement step and the deviation amount correction step are repeatedly executed until the deviation amount of the workpiece after the deviation amount correction step decreases to a set value or less, in view of the teachings of Kamireddi to increase the quality of the final product while spending less time on adjustments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights