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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 12/05/2024 is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to JP2022-092531 is ineffective because the incorporation by reference was filed after the PCT date of 02/17/2023, which considered the filing date of the US application. As such, the incorporation by reference statement must be removed, as it introduces new matter by being filed after the filing date of the application.
See MPEP §608.01(p) I B: “For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date”;
MPEP 1893.03(b): “An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. It should be borne in mind that the filing date of the international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that An international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under Article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office”, and
MPEP 714.01(e): “A preliminary amendment filed with a submission to enter the national stage of an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371 is not part of the original disclosure under 37 CFR 1.115(a) because it was not present on the international filing date accorded to the application under PCT Article 11.” as well as:
PCT Article 11(3) - “...an international filing date shall have the effect of a regular national application in each designated State as of the international filing date, which date shall be considered to be the actual filing date in each designated State.”
The specification amendment filed 12/05/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the incorporation by reference to JP2022-092531.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
A) "through-hole 116" is disclosed in the Specification, but not in the provided instant Figures, and is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5); see Specification, Page 71, Paragraph [0098].
B) element 121, found in FIGS. 10-11, and element 118, found in FIG. 21, are not
explicitly disclosed in the instant Specification, and are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
C) The drawings are objected to because the view numbers of the figures must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG.", see 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) - Numbering of views. The instant figures are labeled with non-English characters from the WIPO submission, and should be labeled with “FIG.” preceding the view number (i.e. FIG. 1, FIG. 2, and thereon).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1. Regarding Claim 5, the recitation of “the magnetic weight material holding mechanism” is likely a typographical error, as the “magnetic weight material holding mechanism” has not been appropriately introduced. An example edit, per the Examiner’s suggestion, is to change this recitation to instead read as “a magnetic weight material holding mechanism”, as to provide appropriate antecedent basis.
2. Regarding Claim 10, the recitation of “a predetermined weight” is likely a typographical error, as the predetermined weight has already been appropriately introduced in Claim 1, of which Claim 10 depends upon. This is likely intended to be written as “the predetermined weight”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
First fixing means in Claim 1 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), corresponding to a vacuum suction of a vacuum mechanism of the table sucker (130), wherein the main body portions (66a) of glass plates (11a) and (11b) are attracted and held by the table sucker (130) (attraction pad) (grinding processing table 128) due to the drive of the vacuum mechanism “(first fixing means (first fixing step))”, see Specification, Pages 163-164, Paragraph [0219].
Second fixing means in Claim 1 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), corresponding to a magnetic attraction between the magnet (131) and the magnetic weight material (47), wherein the facing surface (51) of the magnetic weight material (47) is attracted to the magnet (13) such that the main body portion is sandwiched and fixed by the attraction surface (134) of the magnet (131) located immediately below the lower surface (13) of the main body portion (66a) and the facing surface (51) of the magnetic weight material (47) abutting on the upper surface (12) of the main body portion (66a) and attracted to the magnet (131) “(second fixing means (second fixing step))”, see Specification, Page 167, Paragraph [0224].
First lowering means in Claims 2-3 and first lifting means in Claim 2 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), corresponding to a lifting/lowering mechanism (45) (air cylinder); see Specification, Pages 43-44, Paragraph [0055]; see also Specification, Pages 168-169, Paragraph [0226].
Positioning means in Claim 3 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), corresponding to a slide rod (43); see Specification, Page 43, Paragraph [0054].
Second lowering means in Claim 4, and second lifting means in Claims 4 and 6, are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), corresponding to a lifting/lowering mechanism (45) (air cylinder); see Specification, Pages 43-44, Paragraph [0055]; see also Pages 182-183, Paragraph [0242].
Movement means in Claim 6 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), corresponding to second movement unit (29), wherein the second movement unit (29) comprises a second guide frame (35), a pair of second guide rails (36), a second feed screw (ball screw), a second traveling frame (37), a second slide block (housing nut), a pair of second guide shoes (38), a second servomotor (39), and first to fourth glass plate holders (40a-40d) (first to fourth glass plate lifters), see Specification, Paragraphs [0044], [0048], [0052], and [0247].
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, 7, and 10 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.
1. Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of a table sucker having a predetermined area is unclear. Specifically, the recitation of “predetermined” is unclear, as it is unknown to what extent “a predetermined area” is referring to. When seeking to ascertain the intended structure of the claimed invention, the Examiner reflected upon the intended claim scope in light of the specification. Page 6, paragraph [0008] of the Specification describes, inter alia, “a table sucker having a predetermined area, which is installed on the grinding processing table and attracts and holds a lower surface of the main body portion of the glass plate”, which is identical to the recitation with Claim 1. Based on this description, and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting “a predetermined area” to refer to any area of the table sucker that can attract and hold a lower surface of the main body portion of the glass plate. An example of an edit including this depiction can be written as, “…a table sucker having an area that attracts and holds a lower surface of the main body portion of the glass plate, which is installed on the grinding processing table, and a grinding mechanism…”. However, please amend the claim to reflect the Applicant’s intention. This rejection also applies to Claim 7, where the recitation of “the table sucker having the predetermined area” is repeated.
2. Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of predetermined bend-breaking processing is unclear. When seeking to ascertain the intended structure of the claimed invention, the Examiner reflected upon the intended claim scope in light of the specification. The Specification on Page 6, Paragraph [0008] describes, inter alia, “a grinding processing system that includes a grinding processing table on which a main body portion of a glass plate of which an edge portion is bend-broken through predetermined bend-breaking processing is placed”. Based on this description, and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this to refer to any bend-breaking process that results in an edge portion of a glass plate being bend-broken. An example of an edit, per the Examiner’s suggestion, is to remove “predetermined” from the claim recitation such that Claim 1 instead reads as “of which an edge portion is bend-broken through bend-breaking processing is placed”. However, please amend the claims to reflect the Applicant’s intention.
3. Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of a predetermined weight is unclear. When seeking to ascertain the intended structure of the claimed invention, the Examiner reflected upon the intended claim scope in light of the specification. Pages 44-45, Paragraph [0056] describes, inter alia, “the weight of the magnetic weight material 47 is in a range of 120 to 150 g, and preferably in a range of 130 to 140 g”. Furthermore, Pages 24-25, Paragraph [0028] describes that the glass plate is sandwiched between the predetermined weight of the magnetic weight material and the magnet such that the table sucker can be reinforced in affixing the glass plate to the grinding processing table. Based on this description and the lack of criticality of ranges (i.e. “preferably”), and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this as any weight for fixing a glass article to a surface. An example edit, per the Examiner’s suggestion, includes removing “predetermined” such that the claim instead discloses “a magnetic weight material, having a weight for fixing the glass plate to the grinding processing table, and is located on a side…”. However, please amend the claim to reflect the Applicant’s intention.
4. Regarding Claim 7, the recitation of the magnet having an attraction surface having a predetermined area is unclear. Specifically, the recitation of “predetermined area” is unclear, as it is unknown to what extent of area is defined by “a predetermined area”. When seeking to ascertain the intended structure of the claimed invention, the Examiner reflected upon the intended claim scope in light of the specification. Page 20-21, paragraph [0025] describes, inter alia, “the magnet has the attraction surface having a predetermined area facing the lower surface of the main body portion of the glass plate and the attraction surface is located at the center of the table sucker”, which is a reiteration of the content of Claim 7. Additionally, Page 85, Paragraph [0116] of the Specification recites “the attraction surface 134 is located immediately below the center 133 of the table sucker 130 having a predetermined area”, and “the attraction surface 134 is a flat surface that has a circular shape and is flat in the horizontal direction”. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the predetermined area of the attraction surface to comprise a circular shape and a flat surface extending radially in a plane parallel with the front-rear direction, that is both facing and contacting the underside of a glass plate, and is defined as being located immediately below the center 133 of the table sucker 130. As an example of an edit, the Examiner suggests removing the recitation of “predetermined”, such that the claim instead reads as “the magnet has an attraction surface having a planar area with a circular shape facing the lower surface”. However, please amend the claim to reflect the Applicant’s intention.
5. Regarding Claim 10, the recitation of the magnetic weight material having a predetermined area facing the upper surface of the main body portion of the glass plate is unclear. Specifically, the recitation of “predetermined area” is unclear, as it is not clearly delineated to what extent the area of the magnetic weight material encompasses. When seeking to ascertain the intended structure of the claimed invention, the Examiner reflected upon the intended claim scope in light of the specification. The Specification of the instant application, Pages 44-45, Paragraph [0056] describes, inter alia, “the magnetic weight material 47 is a three-dimensional object formed in a hemispherical shape”, having a “facing surface 51 (pressing surface) located below the attraction surface 50”, and further specifying that “the facing surface 51 is a flat surface having a circular shape and having a predetermined area flat in the horizontal direction”. Furthermore, in the instant figures of the application, FIG. 4 appears to describe the facing surface 51 as having approximately the same surface diameter as the magnet 131. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the predetermined area of the magnetic weight material to refer to a facing surface having a circular shape corresponding to the magnet attraction surface 134, and the facing surface is located below the attraction surface. An example edit, per the Examiner’s suggestion, includes “…a facing surface, having a circular area of equal size to an attraction surface of the magnet, facing the upper surface of the main body…”. However, please amend the claim to reflect the Applicant’s intention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (US 20110143639 A1), herein after referred to as "Bando", in view of Audi and Reinmold (US 4777768 A), herein after referred to as “Audi”.
Regarding Claim 1, Bando discloses a grinding processing system (Bando, Page 1, Paragraph [0002], processing glass plates, including peripheral edge grinding) that includes a grinding processing table on which a main body portion of a glass plate (Bando, Page 3, Paragraph [0045] in view of FIG. 1, grinding table 12 for holding the glass plate 5) of which an edge portion is bend-broken through predetermined bend-breaking processing is placed (Bando, Page 5, Paragraph [0086], the bend-broken glass plate 5 is transferred from the bend-breaking section 4 to the grinding table 12; see also Page 3, Paragraph [0043] and [0084], wherein a peripheral edge portion is bend-broken; see also Page 5, Paragraph [0082], wherein a predetermined bend-breaking process is explained), a table sucker having a predetermined area, which is installed on the grinding processing table and attracts and holds a lower surface of the main body portion of the glass plate (Bando, Page 3, Paragraphs [0045] and [0088] in view of FIG. 1, suction cups 13, installed on the translatable grinding table 12, hold the lower surface of the glass plate 5 at glass-plate supporting portions 20d (i.e. predetermined area)), and a grinding mechanism, and that performs grinding processing on a peripheral edge of the main body portion of the glass plate placed and fixed on the grinding processing table by the table sucker by using the grinding mechanism (Bando, Page 3, Paragraphs [0043] and [0045] in view of FIG. 1, grinding section 3 comprises a grinding wheel 15 for grinding the peripheral edge of the glass plate while the glass plate 3 is fixed by the suction cups 13 of the grinding table 12), the grinding processing system comprising:
first fixing means for causing the table sucker to abut on the lower surface of the main body portion of the glass plate before starting of the grinding processing on the peripheral edge of the main body portion of the glass plate to attract and hold the lower surface of the main body portion (Bando, Page 4, Paragraph [0057] in view of FIG. 1, suction cups 13 abut onto the lower surface of the glass plate 5 to fix the glass plate 5 by suction; see also Paragraph [0088], in the grinding section 3, the glass plate 5 is "fixedly supported or held during the processing operation" at the glass-plate supporting portions 20d, where the suction cups are functionally equivalent to the prior art first fixing means because the prior art element, suction cups, performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification).
Bando does not disclose a magnet placed on the table sucker and located immediately below the lower surface of the main body portion of the glass plate placed on the grinding processing table;
a magnetic weight material having a predetermined weight and located on a side of an upper surface of the main body portion of the glass plate and attracted to the magnet;
and second fixing means for causing the magnet located immediately below the lower surface of the main body portion and the magnetic weight material abutting on the upper surface of the main body portion and attracted to the magnet to sandwich the main body portion before starting of the grinding processing on the peripheral edge of the main body portion of the glass plate.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Audi discloses a magnet (Audi, Col. 3, lines 6-13, an electromagnet, comprising a "winding 23" and an iron core 15) placed on the table sucker (Audi, Col. 2, lines 56-64, soft covers 19 may optionally be adhered to the surface of iron core 15) and located immediately below the lower surface of the main body portion of the glass plate (Audi, Col. 2, lines 65-68, and Col. 3, lines 6-13 in view of FIG. 1, located immediately below the glass sheet 18 placed on an iron core 15) placed on the grinding processing table (Audi, Col. 2, lines 47-51, blocks 13, made of a nonferromagnetic material, are placed on soles 14 to support the electromagnet);
a magnetic weight material having a predetermined weight and located on a side of an upper surface of the main body portion of the glass plate and attracted to the magnet (Audi, Col. 2, lines 65-68, and Col. 3, lines 1-17 in view of FIG. 1, ferromagnetic piece 20 has a predetermined weight (i.e. a ferromagnetic piece of iron smaller than the sheet 18), is located above glass sheet 18, and is attracted to the electromagnet as to sufficiently immobilize a wafer to be processed, where the weight of the magnet is a known value and is therefore predetermined);
and second fixing means for causing the magnet located immediately below the lower surface of the main body portion and the magnetic weight material abutting on the upper surface of the main body portion and attracted to the magnet to sandwich the main body portion before starting of the grinding processing on the peripheral edge of the main body portion of the glass plate (Audi, Col. 1, lines 58-59, Col. 2, lines 65-68, and Col. 3, lines 6-13 in view of FIG. 1, an electromagnet located below the glass sheet 18 has a ferromagnetic piece 20 abutting on the upper surface of the glass sheet 18, which is attracted to the electromagnet, resulting in the glass sheet 18 being locked in a stationary position prior to and during grinding of the peripheral edge of the glass sheet 18, where the prior art electromagnet attracting the ferromagnetic piece is functionally equivalent to the prior art second fixing means because the prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification).
Audi discloses an apparatus for machining glass sheets, “and in particular to holding of said glass sheets during grinding of their edges”, wherein the glass sheets are held stationary on their work plate by an electromagnet (Audi, Abstract). Here, a glass sheet 18 may have an edge grinding by a grinding wheel 1 (Audi, Col. 2, lines 36-40, Col. 3, lines 22-29), and the glass sheet is held in place by an electromagnetic force between an iron core 15 and a ferromagnetic piece 20 (Audi, Col. 1, lines 55-59, Col. 2, lines 65-68, and Col. 3, lines 1-17 in view of FIG. 1). Here, the ferromagnetic piece 20 may optionally be placed or removed by an automated mechanical device (Audi, Col. 3, lines 1-3).
Similarly, Bando further discloses a “glass-plate working apparatus” comprising a series of glass plate processing stages (i.e. grinding section 3, bend-breaking section 4), a transporting device 89 adapted for reciprocating movement for the transfer of glass plates 5 onto supporting portions 20a-20e for processing, and suction pads capable of lifting or lowering a glass plate between processing stages (Bando, Abstract, and Paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to have combined Bando, including the glass-plate working apparatus, with Audi, including the electromagnet and ferromagnetic piece for immobilizing a glass article for processing, which is placeable by an automated mechanical device, such that the grinding table 12 for holding the glass plate 5, including the plurality of suction cups 13 (Bando, Paragraph [0045]), is modified to further include a ferromagnetic piece 20 and an electromagnet, wherein the ferromagnetic piece 20 is placeable by an automated mechanical device (Audi, Col. 2, lines 65-68, Col. 3, lines 1-17; see also Bando, Paragraphs [0091-0092], wherein lifting units 91-94 may raise and lower the suction pads 90, and provide the structure necessary to lift or lower a magnetic weight material) to assist in immobilizing a glass plate for grinding (Audi, Col. 1, lines 55-59). One would be motivated to do this as to improve the efficiency of the invention, wherein Audi discloses that the electromagnet and ferromagnetic piece obtain “much higher locking forces than with low pressure suction disks or plates” (Audi, Col. 1, lines 55-68), representing an improvement upon the apparatus disclosed by Bando.
Regarding Claim 2, Bando in view of Audi disclose the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Bando further discloses the grinding processing system according to claim 1, further comprising a magnetic weight material holding mechanism located on the side of the upper surface of the main body portion of the glass plate (Audi, Col. 2, line 66, and Col. 3, lines 1-3, placing of a ferromagnetic piece 20 can be performed by an automatic mechanical device; see also Bando, Paragraph [0091] in view of FIG. 1, suction pads 90 located above the glass plate 5), wherein the grinding system includes first lowering means for lowering the magnetic weight material toward the upper surface of the main body portion in a state in which the magnetic weight material holding mechanism holds the magnetic weight material before starting of the grinding processing on the peripheral edge of the main body portion of the glass plate (Bando, Paragraphs [0043], [0045], and [0091] in view of FIG. 1, lifting units 91-94 lower the suction pads 90 toward the glass plate 5 prior to the grinding wheel 15 starting the grinding process on the peripheral edge of the glass plate 5; see also Audi, Col. 2, line 66, and Col. 3, lines 1-3, ferromagnetic piece 20 can be placed by an automatic mechanical device, where the prior art lifting units are functionally equivalent to the prior art first lowering means because the prior art, lifting units, performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification) and placing the magnetic weight material immediately above the magnet to sandwich the main body portion (Audi, FIG. 1, ferromagnetic piece 20 is placed above the iron core 15, thus clasping the glass sheet 18), and first lifting means for causing the magnetic weight material holding mechanism to release holding of the magnetic weight material and lifting the magnetic weight material holding mechanism above the magnetic weight material after the magnetic weight material is placed immediately above the magnet by the first lowering means before starting of the grinding processing on the peripheral edge of the main body portion of the glass plate (Bando, Paragraphs [0107-0109] and [0112], the suction pads 90, after lowering and releasing the glass plate 5 onto the grinding table 12, are lifted by the glass-plate lifting devices 81-84, specifically the lifting units 91-94, "to a necessary minimum distance", wherein processing operations may begin upon completion of raising the respective suction pads 90; see also Audi, Col. 2, line 66, and Col. 3, lines 1-3, ferromagnetic piece 20 can be placed by an automatic mechanical device).
Regarding Claim 3, Bando in view of Audi disclose the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Bando further discloses the grinding processing system according to claim 2, further comprising:
positioning means for causing the magnetic weight material holding mechanism to move in a front-rear direction to locate the magnetic weight material held by the magnetic weight material holding mechanism above the main body portion of the glass plate and at a center of the main body portion (Bando, Page 5, Paragraphs [0088-0091] in view of FIG. 1, glass-plate lifting devices 81-84 are mounted on the moving base 80, which reciprocates along an X-axis; see also Bando, Paragraphs [0104-0106], wherein the moving base 80 translates the suction pads 90 to a position above the glass plate 5; see also Audi, Col. 2, line 66, and Col. 3, lines 1-3 in view of FIG. 1, ferromagnetic piece 20 can be placed by an automatic mechanical device in the center of the glass sheet 18, where the prior art moving base is functionally equivalent to the prior art positioning means because the prior art, moving base, performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification), wherein the first lowering means lowers the magnetic weight material toward the upper surface of the main body portion after the magnetic weight material is located above the main body portion and at the center of the main body portion by the positioning means (Bando, Paragraphs [0106-0108] and [0112] in view of FIG. 1, lifting units 91-94 lower the suction pads 90 toward the glass plate 5 after moving base 80 ceases movement above the grinding section 3 (i.e. arrives at a processing position); see also Audi, Col. 2, line 66, and Col. 3, lines 1-3 in view of FIG. 1, ferromagnetic piece 20 can be placed by an automatic mechanical device above the center of the glass sheet 18).
Regarding Claim 4, Bando in view of Audi disclose the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Bando further discloses the grinding processing system according to claim 2, further comprising:
second lowering means for lowering the magnetic weight material holding mechanism toward the magnetic weight material to hold the magnetic weight material after the grinding processing on the peripheral edge of the main body portion of the glass plate is ended (Bando, Paragraph [0105], the lifting devices 81-84, specifically lifting units 91-94, are lowered such that the suction pads 90 towards the glass plate 5 to contact, suck, and lift the glass plate 5 after completion of the processing step, where the prior art lifting units are functionally equivalent to the prior art second lowering means because the prior art element, lifting units, performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification; see also Audi, Col. 2, line 66, and Col. 3, lines 1-3 in view of FIG. 1, ferromagnetic piece 20 can be placed, and lifted, by an automatic mechanical device);
and second lifting means for lifting the magnetic weight material holding mechanism upward from the upper surface of the main body portion of the glass plate in a state of holding the magnetic weight material after the second lowering means causes the magnetic weight material holding mechanism to hold the magnetic weight material after the grinding processing on the peripheral edge of the main body portion of the glass plate is ended, and releasing attraction of the magnetic weight material to the magnet (Bando, Paragraph [0105], the lifting devices 81-84, and specifically lifting units 91-94, are lowered such that the suction pads 90 towards the glass plate 5 to contact, suck, and lift the glass plate 5 after completion of the processing step, where the prior art lifting units are functionally equivalent to the prior art second lifting means because the prior art element, lifting units, performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification; see also Audi, Col. 2, line 66, and Col. 3, lines 1-5 in view of FIG. 1, ferromagnetic piece 20 can be placed, and lifted, by an automatic mechanical device, wherein lifting the ferromagnetic piece 20 releases the magnetic attraction of between itself and the iron core 15).
Regarding Claim 7, Bando in view of Audi disclose the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Bando further discloses the grinding processing system according to claim 1, wherein the magnet has an attraction surface (Audi, Col. 2, lines 52-56 in view of FIG. 1, electromagnet has two surfaces of application 16 against glass sheet 18) having a predetermined area facing the lower surface of the main body portion of the glass plate (Audi, Col. 3, lines 6-9, the two surfaces of application 16 facing the lower surface of the glass sheet 18 each have a dimension of 50cm2 ), and the attraction surface is located at a center of the table sucker having the predetermined area (Bando, Page 3, Paragraphs [0045] and [0088] in view of FIGS. 1-2, suction cups 13, installed on the translatable grinding table 12, hold the lower surface of the glass plate 5 at glass-plate supporting portions 20d (i.e. predetermined area); see also Audi, Col. 2, lines 47-51 in view of FIGS. 1-2, wherein the electromagnet is located at a center of the area defined by the blocks 13 and soles 14).
Regarding Claim 10, Bando in view of Audi disclose the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Bando further discloses the grinding processing system according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic weight material is made of any metal of iron, nickel, and cobalt (Audi, Col. 2, lines 65-67, ferromagnetic piece 20 of iron), has a predetermined weight (Audi, Col. 2, lines 65-67, and Col. 3, lines 9-17, ferromagnetic piece 20 has a predetermined size, and inherently would have a predetermined weight), and has a facing surface having a predetermined area facing the upper surface of the main body portion of the glass plate (Audi, Col. 2, lines 65-68, and Col. 3, lines 1-5 in view of FIG. 1, ferromagnetic piece 20 has a facing surface facing the iron core 15 with a predetermined area above the glass sheet 18 that is covered by a soft material cover 19).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (US 20110143639 A1), herein after referred to as "Bando", in view of Audi and Reinmold (US 4777768 A), herein after referred to as "Audi", and in further view of Miyawki and Sakamoto (JP 2016022651 A), herein after referred to as "Miyawki".
Regarding Claim 5, Bando in view of Audi disclose the grinding processing system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a glass plate holder that is movable in a front-rear direction and an up-down direction (Bando, Page 5, Paragraphs [0088-0091] in view of FIG. 1, glass-plate lifting devices 81, 82, 83, and 84 comprise lifting units 91, 92, 93, and 94, for raising and lowering the suction pads 90, and the glass-plate lifting devices are mounted on the moving base 80, which reciprocates along an X-axis) and causes the main body portion of the glass plate on which the grinding processing is ended to move from the grinding processing table to a carry-out region (Bando, Page 5, Paragraphs [0084-0086] and [0105] in view of FIG. 1, wherein the flat surface of the glass plate 5 is lifted up by the suction pads 90, off of the suction pads 13 of the grinding table 12, and translated to the discharge conveyor 8 upon completion of the processing operation);
and a holder sucker that is installed in the glass plate holder and attracted to the upper surface of the main body portion of the glass plate (Bando, Page 5, Paragraphs [0088] and [0091] in view of FIG. 1, suction pads 90 are installed on the glass-plate lifting devices 81-84 for suctioning and holding an upper surface of the glass plate 5).
Bando in view of Audi does not explicitly disclose the magnetic weight material holding mechanism is installed in the glass plate holder.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Miyawki discloses the magnetic weight material holding mechanism is installed in the glass plate holder (Miyawaka, English Translation, Page 6, lines 15-27, and Page 7, lines 1-14, wherein the second retaining section 12 may have a weight to apply a force on the workpiece 40, and may additionally provide two or more holding means comprising magnetic force or vacuum adsorption).
Miyawki discloses a “method and apparatus for manufacturing brittle materials that facilitates the holding and processing of a workpiece made of brittle material” (Miyawki, English Translation, Page 1, lines 6-7). Here, a device 1 comprising a base plate 10, a lower plate 21, and an upper plate 31, are disclosed, wherein wherein the lower plate 21 and a lower plate cover 22 comprise a first retaining section 11, and the upper plate 31 and an upper plate cover 32 comprise a second retaining section 12 (Miyawki, English Translation, Page 6, lines 10-19). A glass workpiece 40, may be placed on a lower plate cover 22, and clamped between the first and second holding part 11, 12, wherein an “attractive force acts between” the first and second holding parts 11, 12 (Miyawki, English Translation, Page 8, lines 21-25). The attractive force may include gravity (i.e. relying upon the weight of the second holding part 12, magnetic force, or vacuum adsorption, and notably the device may be “equipped with two or more holding means” (i.e. magnetic force and vacuum adsorption) (Miyawki, English Translation, Page 6, lines 26-27, and Page 7, lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to have combined Bando in view of Audi, and in further view of Miyawki, such that the glass-plate working apparatus, disclosed by Bando, is combined with the electromagnet, ferromagnetic piece, and mechanical arm for the placement of the ferromagnetic piece, disclosed by Audi, and is further combined with the vacuum adsorption and magnetic force material integrated onto the second holding part 12 (i.e. magnetic weight material holding mechanism is installed on the glass plate holder), as disclosed by Miyawki. One would be motivated to do this, as Miyawki discloses that such holding means, whether this includes a means for generating magnetic force or a means for vacuum adsorption, or both, are ideal for brittle materials such as glass, which are “less likely to break or have surface defects during processing” (Miyawki, English Translation, Page 7, lines 5-9).
Regarding Claim 6, Bando in view of Audi, and in further view of Miyawki, disclose the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Bando further discloses the grinding processing system according to claim 5, further comprising:
a lifting/lowering mechanism that is installed in the glass plate holder and individually lifts or lowers the magnetic weight material holding mechanism (Audi, Col. 2, line 66, and Col. 3, lines 1-5 in view of FIG. 1, ferromagnetic piece 20 can be placed, and lifted, by an automatic mechanical device; see also Miyawaka, English Translation, Page 6, lines 15-27, and Page 7, lines 1-14, wherein a magnetic force and a vacuum adsorption holding means are integral with the same upper plate 31; see also Bando, Paragraph [0088] and [0105], wherein lifting devices 81-84 may raise or lower the suction pads 90 through the lifting units 91-94), wherein in the second lifting means, the magnetic weight material holding mechanism holding the magnetic weight material is lifted by the lifting/lowering mechanism to release the attraction of the magnetic weight material to the magnet (Bando, Paragraph [0105], the lifting devices 81-84 are lowered such that the suction pads 90 towards the glass plate 5 to contact, suck, and lift the glass plate 5 after completion of the processing step; see also Audi, Col. 2, line 66, and Col. 3, lines 1-5 in view of FIG. 1, ferromagnetic piece 20 can be placed, and lifted, by an automatic mechanical device, wherein lifting the ferromagnetic piece 20 releases the magnetic attraction of between itself and the iron core 15), and the grinding processing system further comprises movement means (Bando, Page 5, Paragraphs [0088] and [0090], moving base 80 causes glass-plate lifting devices 81-84 to reciprocate in an X-axis direction, where the prior art moving base are functionally equivalent to the prior art movement means because the prior art element, movement means, performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification) for, after the magnetic weight material holding mechanism holding the magnetic weight material is lifted by the lifting/lowering mechanism (Bando, Paragraph [0105], the lifting devices 81-84 are lowered such that the suction pads 90 towards the glass plate 5 to contact, suck, and lift the glass plate 5 after completion of the processing step; see also Audi, Col. 2, line 66, and Col. 3, lines 1-5 in view of FIG. 1, ferromagnetic piece 20 can be placed, and lifted, by an automatic mechanical device, wherein lifting the ferromagnetic piece 20 releases the magnetic attraction of between itself and the iron core 15), causing the glass plate holder to move in the front-rear direction (Bando, Page 5, Paragraphs [0088] and [0090], moving base 80 causes glass-plate lifting devices 81-84 to reciprocate in an X-axis direction) to locate the holder sucker above the main body portion of the glass plate (Bando, Page 5, Paragraphs [0088] and [0090-0091], the moving base 80 reciprocates such that the glass-plate lifting devices 81-84, and the suction pads 90, may be positioned above glass-plate supporting portion(s) 20a-20d (i.e. above the upper surface of the glass plate 5)), after the holder sucker is located above the main body portion, lowering the glass plate holder such that the holder sucker is attracted to the upper surface of the main body portion of the glass plate (Bando, Page 5, Paragraphs [0088] and [0090-0091], after suction pads 90 of the glass-plate lifting devices 81-84 are translated above a processing position, lifting units 91-94 lower the suction pads 90 until they contact a glass plate 5), and, after the holder sucker is attracted to the upper surface of the main body portion, causing the main body portion of the glass plate to move to the carry-out region by causing the glass plate holder to move upward and forward (Bando, Page 5, Paragraphs [0086], [0088], [0091], and [0105], suction pads 90 are brought into contact with the surface of the glass plate 5, wherein lifting units 91-94 suction and lift the glass plate 5 using the suction pads 90, and translate by the reciprocating of moving base 80 from the grinding section 3 to the discharge conveyor 8).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (US 20110143639 A1), herein after referred to as "Bando", in view of Audi and Reinmold (US4777768A), herein after referred to as “Audi”, and in further view of Qin and Li (CN 108724057 B), herein after referred to as “Qin”.
Regarding Claim 8, Bando in view of Audi disclose the grinding processing system according to claim 1, and the magnet (Audi, Col. 3, lines 6-13, an electromagnet, comprising a "winding 23" and an iron core 15).
Bando in view of Audi does not disclose the magnet is a permanent magnet.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Qin discloses the magnet is a permanent magnet (Qin, English Translation, Page 7, line 31, "permanent magnet 9").
Qin discloses an “electro-permanent magnet chuck” which relies upon permanent magnets to generate attraction for the purpose of processing of various parts, and is notably used in “forming equipment, mold processing, machinery manufacturing, and lifting machinery” (Qin, English Translation, Page 2, lines 4-9, and Page 9, lines 5-6). The electro-permanent magnet chuck is disclosed to comprise a magnetic yoke 5, a housing 7, a permanent magnet 9, a reversible magnet 8, and a magnetic pole block 6 (Qin, English Translation, Page 7, lines 30-31, and Page 8, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to have combined Bando in view of Audi, and in further view of Qin, such that the glass-plate working apparatus, disclosed by Bando, is combined with the electromagnet, ferromagnetic piece, and automatic mechanical device for the placement of the ferromagnetic piece, disclosed by Audi, and is modified such that the electromagnet is modified into an electro-permanent magnet chuck, disclosed by Qin. One would be motivated to do this to produce a more efficient design, wherein the electro-permanent magnetic chuck, already utilizing present components disclosed by Audi in the electromagnet (i.e. “coil means for inducing an electromagnetic force”, see Audi, Col. 4, lines 3-4; see also “magnetic excitation coil to generate an electromagnetic field”, Qin, English Translation, Page 2, line 15, and Page 4, line 10), has an advantage over the electromagnet such that a electro-permanent magnetic chuck “does not need to be constantly powered on” (Qin, English Translation, Page 2, lines 25-28). This improvement becomes relevant when instances of power failure can cause a loss of magnetism in electromagnetic chucks, resulting in the “attracted item falling off”, whereas the electro-permanent magnetic chuck maintains “a strong magnetic attraction even after the power is off” (Qin, English Translation, Page 2, lines 25-28).
Regarding Claim 9, Bando in view of Audi, and in further view of Qin, disclose the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Bando further discloses the grinding processing system according to claim 8, wherein the permanent magnet is covered with an iron cap to form a yoke that induces a magnetic flux (Qin, English Translation, Page 3, lines 4, and Page 9, lines 25-30 in view of FIGS. 1-3, wherein permanent magnet 9 is covered by a magnetic pole block 6 of industrial pure iron to form a magnetic yoke 5 which induces a magnetic flux).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Nellessen (US 20200219641 A1), discloses a weight of a “magnet material used”, having a weight of “0.2425 Lbs. (110 grams)” (Nellessen, Paragraph [0003]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JON M HEGEMIER whose telephone number is (571)467-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/JON M HEGEMIER/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights