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 .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a positioning seat connected with the linear driver and is located between” should read “a positioning seat connected with the linear driver and located between” for clarity. 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 1-9 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, there are several terms which lack antecedent basis. The following is a list of the first instances where these terms appear in the claim:
Line 2, “the upper surface of a wafer”
Line 4, “the upper end and the lower end of the upper grinding wheel”
Line 5, “the flow of fluid”
Line 10, “the upper surface of the upper grinding wheel”
Line 19, “the interior of the converting seat”
Line 20, “the upper end of the converting seat”
Line 22, “the other end of each of the relay channels”
As each of these terms lack antecedent basis, it is unclear what structure is and isn’t necessary to meet the claim. For the purposes of this examination, in the first instances of each of these claim terms arising in the claim, “the” will be read as “a” in order to make the introduction of the claimed structure clear.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the fluid described is water or air” in the 7th line. The phrase “the fluid described” is confusing and unclear. While “fluid” is mentioned in line 5, it is not introduced with proper antecedent basis (see rejection above), and it is unclear if “the fluid described” is the same fluid as recited throughout the claim. For the purposes of this examination, “the fluid described” will be interpreted as “the fluid” and will be interpreted as referring to the same fluid recited in claim 5 and subsequently in the claim.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the upper surface” in the 13th line, and again in the 16th line. It is unclear which upper surface is being referred to here, as the claim recites an upper surface of a wafer, and an upper surface of the upper grinding wheel. For the purposes of this examination, each of these recitations will be read as referring to the upper surface of the upper grinding wheel, as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim uses the term “several” to describe many of the limitations, including “several channels”, “several drain tubes”, “several flexible covers”, “several relay channels”, “several relay tubes”, “several flow diverters” and “several conveying tubes”. It is unclear what number of these items must be present, as the word “several” has no generally agreed upon range of numbers in this context. For the purposes of this examination, “several” will be interpreted as “a plurality of”, as this appears to be the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites “several flexible covers are respectively attached to one end of each of the drain tubes.” From this wording it is unclear if there are a plurality of flexible covers attached to each of the drain tubes, or if each one of a plurality of flexible covers is respectively attached to an end of each one of the plurality of drain tubes. For the purposes of this examination, the latter interpretation will be implemented, as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Further regarding claim 1, line 16 recites “each of them”. It is unclear what element “them” is referring to. For the purposes of this examination, “each of them” will be interpreted as “each one of the plurality of flexible covers”, as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Further regarding claim 1, lines 21-22 recite “each of the conical spaces respectively forms an orientation vertically correspondence with each of the relay channels individually”. This is confusingly worded and unclear. What does it mean to form “an orientation vertically correspondence with” something? For the purposes of this examination, this phrase will be interpreted as “each one of the plurality of conical spaces is respectively located directly vertically above one of each of the plurality of relay channels”, as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Further regarding claim 1, lines 25-28 recite “each of the relay tubes is in communication with each of the flow diverters, each of the flow diverters is correspondingly connected to several conveying tubes, and each of the conveying tubes is communicated with each of the channels.” It is unclear if each of the relay tubes is intended to be in communication with a single one of the flow diverters, or all of the flow diverters. It is similarly unclear if each of the flow diverters is connected to all of the conveying tubes, and if each of the conveying tubes is communicated with all of the channels. For the purposes of this examination, this phrase will be interpreted as “each one of the plurality of relay tubes is in communication with a respective one of each of the plurality of flow diverters, each of the flow diverters is respectively connected to one conveying tube of a plurality of conveying tubes, and each of the plurality of conveying tubes is respectively communicated with one of each of the plurality channels extending through the upper grinding wheel”, as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
Regarding claims 7-9, the claims each recite the limitation "the axial extension" in their second lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what structure is necessary to meet the claim. For the purposes of this examination, “the” will be read as “a” in order to make the introduction of the claimed structure clear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, Kammermeier (US 2008/0310929) appears to be the closest prior art. Kammermeier teaches a fluid control device with a linear driver 27 and positioning seat 7, between the linear driver and upper surface of the grinding wheel 11. While element 31 may be considered a drain tube, there is no flexible cover on the drain tubes, let alone a converting seat, support frame, relay tubes, flow diverters, or conveying tubes. While some of these elements may be generally known in the prior art (see e.g. US 2010/0227535, US 2004/0082273, US 5952242), there is no suggestion in the prior art to combine these elements in the claimed configuration, and a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to make such modifications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar fluid control devices and grinding apparatuses are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights