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 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:
driving mechanism disclosed as element 6, and equivalents thereof;
flatness detection mechanism disclosed as a laser in ¶60, and equivalents thereof;
a pressure adjustment mechanism disclosed as a controller, a rotation component, or a pressure detection component in ¶89, and equivalents thereof
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou CN 110193763 A in view of Huang CN 113977454 A and Xu CN 106625237 A.
Re claim 1, Zhou teaches a polishing device [fig. 1], comprising
a frame 11, and a polishing disc 21, an assistant polishing disc 3, and a fixture [connection between transmission shaft 7 and tray 3] that are disposed on the frame, wherein:
at least one polishing position 31 is disposed on the assistant polishing disc 3 and configured to place a workpiece 6 to be polished;
a pre-tightening part 4 is disposed on a position 31, corresponding to the at least one polishing position, the pre-tightening part includes a pre-tightening member 4 to adjusts a polishing efficiency of the workpiece to be polished [“the balance weight block pressure applied vertically downward on the pressing block, the pressing block, increasing the pressure, so that polishing of the optical element surface in tight contact with the optical element, thereby improving work”]; and
during a polishing process, the polishing disc 21 rotates, and the assistant polishing disc 3 rotates and/or swings to achieve polishing of the workpiece to be polished.
Zhou does not teach the assistant polishing disc is clamped by the fixture that includes a plurality of claws, the plurality of claws include at least a first claw extending from above the at least one polishing position to an edge of the assistant polishing disc of the first claw, and the pre-tightening part includes a scale with a scale value representing a polishing removal efficiency preset on the scale, and the pre-tightening member adjusts a polishing efficiency of the workpiece to be polished based on the scale value.
Huang teaches an assistant disc 2 clamped by the fixture 1, the fixture including a plurality of claws 6, extending from above the at least one polishing position to an edge of the assistant polishing disc 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the claw clamping fixture of Huang with the assistant disc of Zhou in order to yield the predictable result of a strong lower pressure, improving polishing, efficiency, and reliability [“self-weight of the marble slab provides strong lower pressure for the polishing of the sapphire window, effectively improves the polishing and removing efficiency of the sapphire material … then mounting the upper part, the operation is simple, the structure is reliable“].
Further, Xu teaches a pre-tightening part 2 disposed on a position 11 of an assistant disc 1. The pre-tightening part 2 includes a pre-tightening member 211 and a scale [“puller 211 with pre-pressing scales respectively corresponding to different predetermined pressing force”], and the pre-tightening member adjusts a polishing efficiency of the workpiece to be polished an assistant disc with the scale value representing a polishing removal efficiency preset on the scale [“bar stock fixing mechanism matched with the 2, greatly improving the grinding efficiency”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the scale of Xu with the polishing disc of Zhou in order to yield the predictable result of improving grinding/polishing efficiency.
Re claims 5-15, 17-18, Zhou fails to teach the specific result effective variables of a width of the liquid guide tank, the ratio of the width of the liquid guide tank to a diameter of the workpiece to be polished; the size of the liquid guide tank depending on the diameter of the workpiece, the diameter-to-thickness ratio of the assistant polishing disc; the ratio between the diameter of the assistant polishing disc and the diameter of the polishing disc; the diameter of the polishing disc; the material density of the assistant polishing disc; the a diameter of the at least one polishing position; the ratio of total area of the at least one polishing position and the area of the assistant polishing disc; the ratio of the diameter of any one of the at least one polishing position and the diameter of the assistant polishing disc; the ratio of a diameter of the at least one polishing position to a diameter of the workpiece to be polished; and the distance between two adjacent polishing positions.
However, Applicant has not disclosed how any of these limitations or combination of limitations is critical nor any evidence of an unexpected result (MPEP 716.02(a)) other than scaling the invention down to account for smaller polishing pieces. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not incorporate the specific scaled down variables into a single combined apparatus. But a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to scale down the variables. It is well documented that workpieces in the polishing industry are getting smaller. One of ordinary would know how to scale the system down, if needed, no inventive effort would have been required, and the resulting combined apparatus would yield predictable results of optimizing the polishing of smaller workpieces.
It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II A; and mere scaling a prior art process capable of being scaled, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled”. MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
In this case the assistant polishing disc, the diameters of the polishing disc, the workpiece, and the positions of the assistant polishing disc, as well as the liquid guide tank have been disclosed by the prior art. Optimization of any of these elements by routing experimentation is not inventive. Applicant has not disclosed if the variables were optimized by other than routine experimentation nor evidenced of unexpected result by combining the specific variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize and/or scale the variables claimed to the values claimed, in order to yield the predictable result of optimizing the system of the combination of Zhou, when polishing smaller workpieces.
Re claim 16, Zhou further teaches wherein the at least one polishing position 11 is evenly disposed on the assistant polishing disc.
Re claim 19, Zhou further teaches wherein a counterweight block 51 is disposed in the at least one polishing position, and the counterweight block applies an adjustable pressure in a direction of gravity to the workpiece to be polished.
Re claim 20, Zhou further teaches wherein the counterweight block is connected with the workpiece to be polished in the at least one polishing position through an elastic member 512.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou CN 110193763 A in view of Huang CN 113977454 A and Xu CN 106625237 A and in further view of Yang CN 213561828 U.
Re claim 2, the combination of Zhou teaches the invention as discussed above but fail to teach a flatness detection mechanism and a pressure adjustment mechanism;
wherein the flatness detection mechanism is configured to detect whether a flatness of the polishing disc meets a preset requirement during the polishing process; and
the pressure adjustment mechanism is configured to adjust a pressure applied to the polishing disc by the assistant polishing disc according to a detection result of the flatness detection mechanism.
However, Yang teaches a flatness detection mechanism 6 configured to detect whether a flatness of the polishing disc meets a preset requirement during the polishing process and a pressure adjustment mechanism [construe as the external microcomputer control system and the micro-control telescopic push rod motor 13] configured to adjust a pressure applied to the polishing disc by the assistant polishing disc according to a detection result of the flatness detection mechanism [“the pressure detecting device is connected with the external microcomputer control system”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the flatness detection mechanism and the pressure adjustment mechanism of Yang with the polishing system of Zhou in order to yield the predictable result of controlling pressure during polishing.
Re claim 3, the combination of Zhou teaches the invention as discussed above Zhou further teaches a driving mechanism 7, wherein the driving mechanism is connected with the fixture through a stylus 71 and configured to drive the assistant polishing disc 3 to rotate and/or swing.
Re claim 4, the combination of Zhou teaches the invention as discussed above. Yang further teaches wherein the pressure adjustment mechanism 13 is disposed on the driving mechanism 2.and the pressure adjustment mechanism controls the stylus (screw rod 15) to apply an adjustable pressure to the assistant polishing disc; or the pressure adjustment mechanism 13 is disposed on the fixture 2, 15; and the pressure adjustment mechanism 13 controls the fixture to apply an adjustable pressure in a direction of gravity to the assistant polishing disc.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights