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 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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first chamfer and the second chamfer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution the claim will be interpreted to read as “the top chamfer and the bottom chamfer” as described in previous claims.
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 1-5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 20150113791).
Regarding claim 1, Clark discloses an apparatus comprising:
a two-way pole (spacing means 11 [0035] Fig 2 shown below) comprising:
a mounting pole configured to receive a plurality of disc substrates (rod 21 is capable of receiving a plurality of disc substrates around its cylindrical body [0036]);
a top end piece attachable to a top end of the mounting pole (defined as first base 32 which is attachable to a top end of 21 at first end 22 [0037]); and
a bottom end piece attachable to a bottom end of the mounting pole (defined as second base 33 which is attachable to a bottom end of 21 at second end 23 [0038]); and
a base, wherein the top end piece and the bottom end piece are configured to releasably couple to the base (base defined as plate 36 which releasably couples to bottom piece 33 via screws into screw cavities/recesses 38, and because 36 and 35 are analogous in structure (they are first described as two end plates 35, 36 in [0036]) and attach to 33 and 32 respectively in the same manner, via screws into 38, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that both the top and bottom pieces, as defined above, are capable of releasably coupling to base 36 [0037][0045] Figs 3 and 5 shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
532
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
653
457
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the base comprises a plurality of upwardly extending pins (pins defined as the screws that fasten through recesses 38 upwardly as shown in Fig 5 above [0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the top end piece comprises a plurality of holes configured to receive the upwardly extending pins of the base (top piece 32 has holes defined as screw cavities 38 that are configured to receive the screws of the base, and as explained above; the top piece is capable of being fastened to base 36 as it is structurally the same as plate 35, see Fig 3 above [0037]).
Regarding claim 4, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses the top end piece comprises a top clamp and a top lock, and wherein the top lock includes the plurality of holes (32 comprises a top clamp defined as its bottom face that has recess 27 which receives pole 21 and a top lock defined as the top portion of 32 which has screw cavities 38 [0037] Fig 3 above).
Regarding claim 5, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the bottom end piece comprises a plurality of holes configured to receive the upwardly extending pins of the base (as shown above in Fig 5, bottom piece 33 has a plurality of holes configured to receive the screws of base 36 defined as screw cavities 38 [0045]).
Regarding claim 13, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the top end piece comprises:
a top clamp (32 comprises a top clamp defined as its bottom face that has recess 27 which receives pole 21); and
a top lock, wherein the top lock comprises a fastener to hold the top clamp and the plurality of disc substrates in position when the plurality of disc substrates and the top end piece are mounted on the mounting pole (top lock defined as the remaining structure of 32 which includes fixed member 25 which is defined as the fastener, as 25 is what fixes 32 to 21 and therefore holds the top clamp and would be capable of holding a plurality of disc substrates in position when mounted on the pole 21 [0037] Fig 3).
Claims 6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 20150113791) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bankaitis (US 20220339751).
Regarding claim 6, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the mounting pole is further configured to receive a plurality of spacers (spacers 34 are mounted on pole 21 [0036] Fig 2 above).
However, Clark fails to disclose wherein each is spacer is positioned between each pair of adjacent disc substrates.
Bankaitis is concerned with edge finishing of substrates and teaches spacers positioned between pairs of adjacent disc substrates (spacers defined as interposer 716 which, as shown by Fig 7B below, are arranged between each pair of adjacent disc substrates 702 [0077], the disc substrates may have a central hole which would allow them to be mounted on a pole [0124]).
PNG
media_image4.png
275
747
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the spacers of Clark with the spacers of Bankaitis because the spacers of Bankaitis are configured to expose more of the substrates surfaces to the chamfering brush 708 by having a width/length smaller than that of substrates 702 as explained in Bankaitis [0077] and seen above in Fig 7B, and therefore are configured to be positioned between disc substrates.
Regarding claim 12, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Clark fails to disclose the each of the plurality of disc substrates has an outside diameter that corresponds to a data storage disk.
Bankaitis teaches disc substrates with an outside diameter and disc substrates intended for use in data storage ([0124] explains that the disc substrates may be intended for use in data storage).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if a disc substrate is intended for use in data storage while also having an outside diameter, then that substrate would have a diameter that corresponds to a data storage disk.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 20150113791) in view of Bankaitis (US 20220339751) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Park (KR 101964565).
Regarding claim 7, Clark, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 6, as described above. However, Clark fails to disclose a first brush is configured to form at least part of a top chamfer on each disc substrate of the plurality of disc substrates when the bottom end piece of the two way pole, with the plurality of disc substrates and the plurality of spacers, is coupled to the base; and
a second brush is configured to form at least part of a bottom chamfer on each disc substrate of the plurality of disc substrates when the bottom end piece of the two way pole, with the plurality of disc substrates and the plurality of spacers, is coupled to the base.
Bankaitis teaches a first brush is configured to form at least part of a top chamfer on each disc substrate of the plurality of disc substrates (brush defined as 708 which is configured to form at least part of a top chamfer on each disc substrate as brush 708 forms a complete chamfered edge 710B as shown above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the brushes of Bankaitis in the apparatus of Clark in order to provide the apparatus with a means of polishing a chamfered edge of each disc substrate, as brushes are well known in the art as demonstrated by Bankaitis.
Park is also concerned with polishing glass substrates and teaches the use of two brushes (a polishing brush 200 for polishing a glass edge surface is provided on one or both sides of the device [0017] Fig 17 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
655
458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two brushes like that of Bankaitis at once as demonstrated by Park, in order to improve the efficiency of the apparatus of Clark modified, because creating chamfers on both sides of the substrates at once would be faster than only brushing one side at a time and therefore the throughput of the apparatus would be improved. The two brushes of Bankaitis are able to create chamfers on both sides of the substrates at once, regardless of the orientation of Clark’s mounting pole relative to the base. Therefore, the first brush is capable of forming at least part of a top chamfer when the bottom piece of the pole is coupled to the base, as defined above, and the second brush is capable of forming at least part of a bottom chamfer in the same orientation.
Regarding claim 8, Clark, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses the first brush configured to form at least part of a bottom chamfer on each disc substrate of the plurality of disc substrates when the top end piece of the two way pole, with the plurality of disc substrates and the plurality of spacers, is coupled to the base; and
a second brush configured to form at least part of a top chamfer on each disc substrate of the plurality of disc substrates when the top end piece of the two way pole, with the plurality of disc substrates and the plurality of spacers, is coupled to the base (The two brushes of Bankaitis are able to create chamfers on both sides of the substrates at once, regardless of the orientation of Clark’s mounting pole relative to the base. Therefore, the first brush is capable of forming at least part of a bottom chamfer when the top piece of the pole is coupled to the base, as defined above, and the second brush is capable of forming at least part of a top chamfer in the same orientation).
Regarding claim 9, Clark, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses the each of the plurality of spacers has an outer perimeter and profile that is smaller than an outer diameter of each of the plurality of disc substrates (the spacers of Bankaitis, 716, have a length/width smaller than that of substrates 702 [0077]).
However, Clark, as modified, fails to disclose spacers that are circular and therefore have an outer diameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the spacers of Bankaitis to be circular and therefore have an outer diameter as an obvious matter of design choice.
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 10, Clark, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses the first brush comprises bristles, wherein the first brush is configured to rotate and move spirally so that the bristles of the first brush contact each disc substrate in a manner to form the at least part of the top chamfer, and wherein the second brush comprises bristles, wherein the second brush is configured to rotate and move spirally so that the bristles of the second brush contact each disc substrate in a manner to form the at least part of the bottom chamfer (the brushes may have bristles [0069], the two brushes of Bankaitis are able to rotate, move spirally, and create chamfers on both sides of the substrates at once. Therefore, the first brush is capable of forming at least part of a top chamfer and the second brush is capable of forming at least part of a bottom chamfer in the same orientation).
Regarding claim 11, Clark, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses each of the plurality of disc substrates comprise a glass substrate, and wherein the bristles of the first brush and the bristles of the second brush are adapted to form the first chamfer and the second chamfer on the glass substrate (the disc substrates are glass substrates [0009], as explained above the brushes create chamfers on both sides of the substrates at once and therefore are also adapted to form the first chamfer and the second chamfer respectively).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 20150113791) in view of Bankaitis (US 20220339751) and Park (KR 101964565).
Regarding claim 14, Clark discloses a system comprising:
a mounting pole configured to receive a plurality of disc substrates (rod 21 is capable of receiving a plurality of disc substrates around its cylindrical body [0036]);
a first end piece attachable to a first end of the mounting pole (defined as first base 32 which is attachable to a top end of 21 at first end 22 [0037]); and
a second end piece attachable to a second end of the mounting pole (defined as second base 33 which is attachable to a bottom end of 21 at second end 23 [0038]).
However, Clark fails to disclose a first brush; and a second brush, wherein the system is configured to form at least part of a first chamfer and at least part of a second chamfer on each disc substrate using the first brush when the plurality of disc substrates are mounted on the mounting pole, and wherein the system is configured to form at least part of the first chamfer and at least part of the second chamfer when the plurality of disc substrates are mounted on the mounting pole.
Bankaitis teaches a first brush (brush defined as 708 as shown above in Fig 7B, which is configured to form a chamfered edge on each disc substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the brush of Bankaitis in the system of Clark in order to provide the system with a means of polishing a chamfered edge of each disc substrate, as brushes are well known in the art as demonstrated by Bankaitis.
Park is also concerned with polishing glass substrates and teaches the use of two brushes (a polishing brush 200 for polishing a glass edge surface is provided on one or both sides of the device [0017] Fig 17 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two brushes like that of Bankaitis at once as demonstrated by Park, in order to improve the efficiency of the apparatus of Clark modified, because creating chamfers on both sides of the substrates at once would be faster than only brushing one side at a time and therefore the throughput of the apparatus would be improved. The first brush of Bankaitis is able to create chamfers on both sides of the substrates at once. Therefore, the first brush, and the system, is capable of forming at least part of a first chamfer and second chamfer when the substrates are mounted on the pole.
Regarding claim 15, Clark, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and further discloses the mounting pole is further configured to receive a plurality of spacers (spacers 34 are mounted on pole 21 [0036] Fig 2 above).
However, Clark fails to disclose wherein each is spacer is positioned between each pair of adjacent disc substrates.
Bankaitis teaches spacers positioned between pairs of adjacent disc substrates (spacers defined as interposer 716 which, as shown by Fig 7B below, are arranged between each pair of adjacent disc substrates 702 [0077], the disc substrates may have a central hole which would allow them to be mounted on a pole [0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the spacers of Clark with the spacers of Bankaitis because the spacers of Bankaitis are configured to expose more of the substrates surfaces to the chamfering brush 708 by having a width/length smaller than that of substrates 702 as explained in Bankaitis [0077] and seen above in Fig 7B, and therefore are configured to be positioned between disc substrates.
Regarding claim 16, Clark, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses the each of the plurality of spacers has an outer perimeter and profile that is smaller than an outer diameter of each of the plurality of disc substrates (the spacers of Bankaitis, 716, have a length/width smaller than that of substrates 702 [0077]).
However, Clark, as modified, fails to disclose spacers that are circular and therefore have an outer diameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the spacers of Bankaitis to be circular and therefore have an outer diameter as an obvious matter of design choice.
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 17, Clark, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and further discloses the first brush comprises bristles, wherein the first brush is configured to rotate and move spirally so that the bristles of the first brush contact each disc substrate in a manner to form the at least part of the first chamfer and the at least part of the second chamfer, and wherein the second brush comprises bristles, wherein the second brush is configured to rotate and move spirally so that the bristles of the second brush contact each disc substrate in a manner to form the at least part of the first chamfer and the at least part of the second chamfer (the brushes may have bristles [0069], the two brushes of Bankaitis are able to rotate, move spirally, and create chamfers on both sides of the substrates at once. Therefore, the first brush is capable of forming at least part of the first chamfer and second chamfer and the second brush is capable of forming at least part of the first chamfer and second chamfer in the same orientation).
Regarding claim 18, Clark, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses each of the plurality of disc substrates comprise a glass substrate, and wherein the bristles of the first brush and the bristles of the second brush are adapted to form the first chamfer and the second chamfer on the glass substrate (the disc substrates are glass substrates [0009], as explained above the brushes create chamfers on both sides of the substrates at once and therefore are also adapted to form the first chamfer and the second chamfer respectively).
Regarding claim 19, Clark, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and further discloses the first end piece comprises:
a clamp (32 comprises a clamp defined as its bottom face that has recess 27 which receives pole 21); and
a lock, wherein the lock comprises a fastener to hold the clamp and the plurality of disc substrates in position when the plurality of disc substrates and the first end piece are mounted on the mounting pole (lock defined as the remaining structure of 32 which includes fixed member 25 which is defined as the fastener, as 25 is what fixes 32 to 21 and therefore holds the clamp and would be capable of holding a plurality of disc substrates in position when mounted on the pole 21 [0037] Fig 3).
Regarding claim 20, Clark, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 14, as described above. However, Clark fails to disclose the each of the plurality of disc substrates has an outside diameter that corresponds to a data storage disk.
Bankaitis teaches disc substrates with an outside diameter and disc substrates intended for use in data storage ([0124] explains that the disc substrates may be intended for use in data storage).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if a disc substrate is intended for use in data storage while also having an outside diameter, then that substrate would have a diameter that corresponds to a data storage disk.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/J.M.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
