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 .
Drawings
Figures 3 and 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: METHOD OF TRIMMING A BEVELED EDGE OF A WORKPIECE USING A CUTTING BLADE
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagi; Yusuke et al. (JP-2018114581-A; hereinafter Miyagi) in view of Ishimasa; Yukio (JP-2006319292-A; hereinafter Ishimasa).
Regarding claim 1, Miyagi discloses a method of processing a workpiece (W; Figs 1-2,8, 10-13; ¶ [0013,0024-25]) by performing an edge trimming process on the outer circumferential portion thereby to cut off a part of the outer circumferential portion (ER; Fig 12; ¶ [0028]), the method comprising:
a holding step (ST4; ¶ [0027]) of placing the workpiece on a holding surface (10a; Figs 4,12) of a chuck table (10; Figs 4,12; ¶ [0017]) that is rotatable about a table rotation axis perpendicular to the holding surface (parallel to the Z-axis, the table rotation axis extending in X- and Y-directions; Fig 4; ¶ [0017]) and holding the workpiece on the chuck table; and
after the holding step, an incising step (ST5; Figs 11,12; ¶ [0028]) of forcing a cutting edge portion of an annular cutting blade (22; Figs 11,12; ¶ [0028,0019]) to cut into the edge of the workpiece while the cutting blade is rotating about a blade rotation axis (parallel to the Y-axis; Figs 4,11; ¶ [0019]), and causing the chuck table to make at least one revolution about the table rotation axis (entire circumference; ¶ [0028]), thereby cutting into the edge with the cutting blade along an entire outer circumference of the workpiece to cut off a part of the workpiece, wherein,
while the cutting blade is cutting into the edge of the workpiece in the incising step, the table rotation axis and the blade rotation axis do not intersect with each other (the straight line SL that bisects the thickness of the cutting blade 22 of Fig 11 intersects a tangent line TG of the workpiece edge at the angle θ which is greater than 5 degrees {¶ [0027]}, the tangent line by definition being perpendicular to a radius of the workpiece, the radius intersecting the table rotation axis; therefore, the blade rotation axis which is perpendicular to SL does not intersect the table rotation axis, being greater than 5 degrees away from an intersection. Further, an exemplary embodiment of Fig 13 depicts an additional example wherein a table rotation axis and a blade rotation axis do not intersect with each other.)
Miyagi does not disclose the workpiece having a beveled edge on its outer circumferential portion during the above-mentioned steps of the method, and the cutting is cutting into the beveled edge.
In the same field of endeavor, Ishimasa discloses a related method (Figs 6,12; ¶ [0025-29,0038-41]), wherein the cutting edge of grinding wheel 15 (¶ [0028]) removes a beveled edge (1A; Figs 4,6,8,12; ¶ [0038]) of a workpiece 2, and the table rotation axis and the blade rotation axis do not intersect with each other (45 degrees from a radial direction; Fig 12; ¶ [0028]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have applied Miyagi’s method of processing a workpiece to a beveled edge workpiece, in view of Ishimasa’s disclosure of a similar method used with a beveled edge workpiece, Ishimasa’s method including a 45 degree cutting angle example overlapping the greater than 5 degree angle disclosed by Miyagi. One would have been motivated to do this in order to suppress chipping on the outer circumference of the workpiece (Miyagi; ¶ [0029-30,0034-37]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar methods used for the similar workpieces of both Miyagi and Ishimasa.
Further Miyagi discloses both a pre-grinding edge trimming step ST1 executed on a beveled edge and the post-grinding edge trimming step ST5 discussed above, wherein the bevel has already been removed by the back grinding step ST3. The Examiner understands that the primary difference of step ST1 as compared to step ST5 is that the angle θ is zero degrees in step ST1; however, the Examiner does not find explanation in Miyagi’s disclosure as to why the edge trimming steps need be divided into two steps ST1 and ST5 having a different angle θ, or any suggestion that the existence or not of a beveled edge to the workpiece is a factor in the preferred value of the angle θ. Therefore, considering Miyagi’s disclosure alone, it would be further obvious, at least to have tried, combining the steps ST5 and ST1 wherein edge trimming step ST5 is performed on workpiece having a beveled edge on its outer circumferential portion. One would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce the number or processing steps required, by combining the steps. Finally, considering the above discussed steps ST1 and ST5 of Miyagi, in combination with the additional disclosure of Ishimasa, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used, or at least to have tried and evaluated, the ST5 method of Miyagi on a workpiece having a beveled edge on its outer circumferential portion for the same reason to suppress chipping on the outer circumference of the workpiece (Miyagi; ¶ [0029-30,0034-37]).
Regarding claim 2, Miyagi in view of Ishimasa discloses the method of processing a workpiece according to claim 1, wherein
while the cutting blade is cutting into the beveled edge of the workpiece in the incising step, an angle formed between a straight line interconnecting the table rotation axis and a center of the cutting edge portion of the cutting blade on a plane lying parallel to the holding surface of the chuck table and including the center of the cutting edge portion of the cutting blade and the blade rotation axis is in a range from 5 degrees to 175 degrees.
(Miyagi discloses an equivalent range of greater than 5 degrees (Miyagi; ¶ [0027]), as applied to claim 1) for the angle θ (measured from a reference point {a tangent line to a workpiece edge} 90 degrees different from the instant application reference point of the cutting blade rotation axis. While Miyagi’s angle range literally is 5 to 180 or 5 to 360 degrees, it is clearly meant as greater than 5 degrees from the tangent line, which could be measured from the cutting blade on either size of the rotation axis and from the tangent line on either size of a radius line, that is, 5 to 175 degrees, which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ahn; Jungseok et al. (US 2021/0320000; the prior art discloses methods of performing an edge trimming process on the outer circumferential portion of a workpiece, including a bar-shaped trimming blade which may rotate about an axis either perpendicular to or parallel to a rotational axis of the workpiece, wherein when rotating about a parallel axis, the blade rotational axis does not intersect with the workpiece rotational axis. The prior art also discloses the method including a disc-shaped trimming blade but is silent in regards to a relationship between its rotation axis and a workpiece rotational axis).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; M-F.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights