DETAILED ACTION
Continuation Reissue Application
The instant reissue application is a continuation reissue of earlier reissue Application No. 17/472,249 and, thus, is a second application for reissue of US Patent No. 10,405,618 B1. See MPEP 1451, 35 USC 251(b), and 37 CFR 1.177.
Earlier reissue Application No. 17/472,249 is now abandoned.
Maintenance Fees
MPEP 2504 explains that, for maintenance fees due on or after January 16, 2018, separate maintenance fees must be paid in:
Each reissued patent in force on (i.e., issued before) the maintenance fee due date. This includes all reissued patents that replace the same original patent.
An original patent that is not surrendered because one or more applications for reissue of that original patent are still pending on the maintenance fee due date.
USPTO records show that the four-year maintenance fee has been timely filed and, thus, maintenance fee payments are up to date for original US Patent No. 10,405,618 B1.
Status of Submission
This Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on December 2, 2024, which has been entered with the exception of the proposed replacement drawing sheets (see explanation below).
Claims Subject to Examination
Amended patent claims 1-6 and 8-20 (claims 4 and 5 having been amended by virtue of dependency) and new reissue claim 21 are subject to examination. Patent claim 7 has been canceled.
Objection to Reissue Application
The instant application is objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.177(a). When applicant files more than one application for the reissue of a single patent, each such application must contain or be amended to contain in the first sentence of the specification a notice stating that more than one reissue application has been filed and identifying each of the reissue applications by application number, filing date, and relationship. See 37 CFR 1.177 and MPEP 1451. Further, the first paragraph of the specification should clearly identify each of the reissue applications as a reissue of Patent No. 10,309,346 B2.
In amending the first paragraph of the specification, the following wording is suggested:
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED [APPLICATION] APPLICATIONS
“Notice: More than one reissue application has been filed for the reissue of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,618 B1. The reissue applications are: Application No. 17/472,249 filed on Sep. 10, 2021, now abandoned; and this Application No. 18/966,071 filed on Dec. 2, 2024.
This application is an application for reissue of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,618 B1 and is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/472,249, which is also an application for reissue of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,618 B1, which was filed as U.S. Application No. 15/717,472 on Sep. 27, 2017, which is a non-provisional of and claims the benefit of priority to [my application] U.S. [Ser.] Provisional Application No. 62/400,516, filed Sep. 27, 2016, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
Objection to Amendment – Formalities
The claim amendments filed on December 2, 2024 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2), (d) and (g). Amended claims must show all changes made relative to the patent claims, with omitted text enclosed in single brackets, and added text underlined. New claims must be underlined in their entirety.
The claim amendments are improper because:
In claim 2, at line 8, the symbol “≤” is overlapped by the underline such that the symbol is not legible.
In claim 13, at line 2, “halves ]to” should read “halves] to” since the period immediately follows “halves” in the patent claim.
In claim 16, at line 2, “percent of a diameter” should read “percent of a diameter”.
In claim 20, at line 8, the symbol “≤” is overlapped by the underline such that the symbol is not legible.
The specification amendments filed on December 2, 2024 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(1), (d) and (g). The precise point in the patent specification must be identified where any added or amended paragraph is located. Such paragraphs must show all changes made relative to the patent specification, with omitted text enclosed in single brackets, and added text underlined. New paragraphs must be underlined in their entirety.
The specification amendments are improper because:
The new paragraph added at line 3 of col. 1 does not properly amend relative to the existing CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION section of the original patent. See the amendment suggested above.
In the rewritten paragraph (formula) located at col. 5, line 52, one of the brackets is improperly underlined.
In the rewritten paragraph (formula) located at col. 5, line 52, deleted Equation (2A) reads “[LH°max = [PM + 1.50 - 0.3667*(LH% -75)] (2A)]”. It should read “[LH°max=[PM+1.50-0.3667*(LH %-75)] (2A)]” in order to properly reflect the original patent.
In the rewritten paragraph (formula) located at col. 6, line 12, one of the brackets is improperly underlined.
In the rewritten paragraph (formula) located at col. 6, line 12, deleted Equation (4) reads “[LH°max = [PM + 1.26 - 0.3667*(LH% -75)] (4)]”. It should read “[LH°max=[PM+1.26-0.3667*(LH %-75)] (4)]” in order to properly reflect the original patent.
In the 1st line of the rewritten paragraph located at col. 10, lines 45-58, “[Image 3B.]” should read “[Image 3B]” in order to properly show the changes made.
In the rewritten paragraph (formula) located at col. 11, line 9, one of the brackets is improperly underlined.
In the rewritten paragraph (formula) located at col. 11, line 9, deleted Equation (4) reads “[LH°max = [PM + 1.26 - 0.3667*(LH% -75)] (4)]”. It should read “[LH°max=[PM+1.26-0.3667*(LH %-75)] (4)]” in order to properly reflect the original patent.
In the rewritten paragraph (formula) located at col. 13, line 29, one of the brackets is improperly underlined.
In the rewritten paragraph (formula) located at col. 13, line 29, deleted Equation (4) reads “[LH°max = [PM + 1.26 - 0.3667*(LH% -75)] (4)]”. It should read “[LH°max=[PM+1.26-0.3667(LH %-75)] (4)]” in order to properly reflect the original patent.
The deletion of TABLE 2 at col. 14, line 35 to col. 15, line 19 is improper because the reproduction of TABLE 2 is illegible.
The instruction to insert replacement TABLE 2 “beginning col. 14, line 35 – col. 15, l. 19” is improper. It should instruct the insertion of replacement TABLE 2 “at col. 15, l. 20”.
In replacement TABLE 2, in Equation (1), the symbol “≤” is overlapped by the underline such that the symbol is not legible.
In replacement TABLE 2, in Equation (4), the symbol “≥” is overlapped by the underline such that the symbol is not legible.
In replacement TABLE 2, in Equation (6), the symbol “≤” is overlapped by the underline such that the symbol is not legible.
Applicant is required to place the amendments into compliance with 37 CFR 1.173 in response to this Office action.
The specification amendments filed on December 2, 2024 are also objected to because:
In the 1st line of the rewritten paragraph located at col. 5, lines 19-27, “[Table 1] Table 2 lists the proportions of virtual diamonds 1A and 1B” is inaccurate since Table 2 does not show data for virtual diamonds 1A and 1B. Rather, Table 1 shows such data.
Page 6 of the amendments is largely left blank, which is confusing and suggests inaccurately that the amendments end on page 6.
In the rewritten paragraph located at col. 6, lines 8-10, “an interpolative function at or above a pavilion mains angle of 40.9” is inconsistent with and contradicts the disclosure at col. 11, lines 1-15. According to col. 11, lines 1-15, Equation (4) is derived from the data shown in Table 5, including the preferred values (i.e., LH°max with no indexing) shown in Table 5. Table 5 includes values for the pavilion mains angle (PM) of 40.5, 40.6, 40.7, 40.8, 40.9 and 41.0. Since Equation (4) is derived from this data, it is not “an interpolative function at or above a pavilion mains angle of 40.9”.
In the 4th line of the rewritten paragraph located at col. 10, lines 59-67, “the “preferred” maximum lower halves angle” should read “the “preferred” maximum lower halves angle (LH°max, No Indexing)”.
In the 5th to 6th lines of the rewritten paragraph located at col. 11, lines 38-59, “lower halves numbered 1 and 16 (FIG. 18) are seen as being steeper (42.2°) and shorter ([76.2% and ]76.6%) than the others” is inaccurate. FIG. 18 shows the lower halves numbered 1 and 16 with a length of 76.6%, and the lower halves numbered 2 and 3 with a length of 76.2%. Thus, the lower halves numbered 1 and 16 are not “shorter…than the others” since they are not shorter than the lower halves numbered 2 and 3.
In the 12th line of the rewritten paragraph located at col. 11, lines 38-59, “lower halves 8 and 9 (77.0%/76.9%” is inaccurate. FIG. 18 shows both of the lower halves numbered 8 and 9 with a length of 77.0%. Neither of these lower halves has a length of 76.9%.
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s petition to accept color drawings filed on December 2, 2024. The petition will be addressed by appropriate USPTO personnel in due course.
The proposed replacement drawing sheets filed on December 2, 2024 have been disapproved by the examiner and will not be entered.
The proposed replacement drawing sheets are not acceptable because:
Figs. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 include reference number “20”, which corresponds to facets. See Figs. 14-15; col. 10, ll. 45-63. However, the inclusion of reference number “20” in Figs. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 is improper because the facets are only illustrated in Figs. 14-15.
Figs. 16-23 should be designated by a legend such as “PRIOR ART” or “COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE” because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP 608.02(g).
Original Disclosure – Definition
The instant application seeks reissue of US Patent No. 10,405,618 B1, which issued from Application No. 15/717,472. The “original disclosure” is the disclosure of Application No. 15/717,472 as filed on September 27, 2017. Any subject matter added to the disclosure (including the claims) during either the examination of the instant reissue application or the earlier-concluded examination of Application No. 15/717,472 does not constitute a part of the “original disclosure”.
Prohibition of New Matter
35 USC 132(a) states, in part, that “No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.” 35 USC 251(a) states, in part, that “No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.”
New Matter Added During Present Examination
The amendment filed in the instant application on December 2, 2024 is objected to under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a) because it improperly introduces new matter for the following reasons.
The rewritten paragraph (formula) located at col. 6, line 12 defines Equation (4) as “LH°max = [PM + 1.26 - 0.03667*(LH%-75)]”. However, the original disclosure defines Equation (4) as LH°max=[PM+1.26-0.3667*(LH %-75)]. The change from “0.3667” to “0.03667” introduces new matter because it does not find support in the original disclosure. Applicant argues that substituting the values shown in Table 5 into the new Equation (4) confirms that “0.03667” is the correct value. See p. 17 of the response filed on January 25, 2024. However, applicant’s arguments do not provide data showing this assertion to be true. As shown below, substituting many of the values shown in Table 5 into the new Equation (4) yields results that conflict with the data in Table 5. Thus, such substitution does not provide the necessary support for the new factor “0.03667”.
Pavilion Mains Angle (PM)
Lower Halves Length (LH %)
LH°max, No Indexing in Table 5
Result Using Factor 0.03667
40.5
79
41.62
41.61
40.6
76
41.83
41.82
40.7
76
41.93
41.92
40.8
76
42.03
42.02
40.8
78
41.96
41.95
40.9
76
42.13
42.12
40.9
78
42.06
42.05
40.9
79
42.02
42.01
41.0
76
42.23
42.22
41.0
78
42.16
42.15
41.0
79
42.12
42.11
The rewritten paragraph (formula) located at col. 5, line 52 defines Equation (2A) as “LH°max = [PM + 1.50 - 0.03667*(LH%-75)]”. However, the original disclosure defines Equation (2A) as LH°max=[PM+1.50-0.3667*(LH %-75)]. The change from “0.3667” to “0.03667” introduces new matter for the reasons given above. In addition, the change from “0.3667” to “0.03667” introduces new matter because Table 5 is not disclosed as showing data from which Equation (2A) is derived. Thus, substituting values from Table 5 into the equation does not confirm that “0.03667” is the correct factor for Equation (2A).
The rewritten paragraph (formula) located at col. 11, line 9 defines Equation (4) as “LH°max = [PM + 1.26 - 0.03667*(LH%-75)]”. The change from “0.3667” to “0.03667” introduces new matter for the reasons explained above.
The rewritten paragraph located at col. 12, lines 41-50 has been amended to define the “green table facets” as the element(s) 14A shown in Figs. 20, 21 and 23. According to the original disclosure, element 14A constitutes a green region, with the green region 14A in the periphery of the table being the green table effect. See col. 2, lines 55-58. The identification of element 14A (or plural elements 14A) as “green table facets” does not find support in the original disclosure.
The rewritten paragraph (formula) located at col. 13, line 29 defines Equation (4) as “LH°max = [PM + 1.26 - 0.03667*(LH%-75)]”. The change from “0.3667” to “0.03667” introduces new matter for the reasons explained above.
Replacement Table 2 (replacing Table 2 located at col. 14, line 35 to col. 15, line 19) defines Equation (4) as “LH°max = [PM + 1.26 - 0.03667*(LH%-75)]”. The change from “0.3667” to “0.03667” introduces new matter for the reasons explained above.
Replacement Table 2 (replacing Table 2 located at col. 14, line 35 to col. 15, line 19) defines Equation (5) as “(LH°max - 0.3) < LH° < LH°max”. However, the original disclosure defines Equation (5) as (LH°max–0.3)< LH°≤LH°max. The change from “≤” to “<” introduces new matter.
Amended claim 2 recites “…the formulae…PM<LH°<LH°max and LH°max=PM + 1.5” (ll. 5 and 8). However, the original disclosure defines Equation (2) as LH°max=PM + 1.50. The change from “1.50” to “1.5” introduces new matter because “1.5” encompasses values (e.g., 1.51, 1.52, 1.53 and 1.54) that are not encompassed by “1.50”.
Amended claim 14 recites “further comprising cutting the gemstone from rough.” Prior claim 1 is specifically directed to shaping/amending an original gemstone (i.e., amending a gemstone that was previously cut from rough). See the preamble and lines 3-12 of claim 1. The patent specification discloses that the inventive shaping to avoid the green table effect can comprise cutting the gemstone from rough, or re-cutting and/or polishing the gemstone from the original cut. See, for example, col. 7, ll. 26-29. There is no support in the original disclosure for both shaping/amending an original gemstone (i.e., amending a gemstone that was previously cut from rough) to avoid the green table effect, and cutting the same gemstone from rough to avoid the green table effect. Further, there is no support in the original disclosure for cutting the gemstone from rough subsequent to shaping/amending the gemstone to avoid the green table effect.
Amended claim 16 recites “a table of about 53.5 to about 58.0 percent of a diameter” (ll. 1-2). This broad recitation allows for the recited table to be defined relative to any diameter. In contrast, the original disclosure states that facet angles and dimensions are generally taken with respect to a table angle of 0° and the average diameter of the gemstone measured at the girdle. See col. 1, ll. 24-28. The specification goes on to define a specific diameter taken as an average measurement at the girdle, with the table having an average width from about 53.5 to about 58.0 percent of that specific diameter. See col. 7, ll. 66-67; col. 8, ll. 2-3. Thus, amended claim 16 recites new matter because it is not limited to a table defined relative to an average diameter measured at the girdle.
Amended claim 16 recites “a girdle thickness from a minimum of about 0.1 to a maximum of about 5.4 percent of the diameter” (ll. 3-4). This broad recitation allows for the recited girdle thickness to be defined relative to any diameter. In contrast, the original disclosure states that facet angles and dimensions are generally taken with respect to a table angle of 0° and the average diameter of the gemstone measured at the girdle. See col. 1, ll. 24-28. The specification goes on to define a specific diameter taken as an average measurement at the girdle, with a girdle thickness being a minimum of about 0.1 to a maximum of about 5.4 percent (±0.05 percent) of that specific diameter. See col. 7, ll. 66-67; col. 8, ll. 11-13. Thus, amended claim 16 recites new matter because it is not limited to a girdle thickness defined relative to an average diameter measured at the girdle.
Amended claim 16 recites “a crown mains height from about 14.83 to about 16.93 percent of the diameter” (ll. 5-6). This broad recitation allows for the recited crown mains height to be defined relative to any diameter. In contrast, the original disclosure states that facet angles and dimensions are generally taken with respect to a table angle of 0° and the average diameter of the gemstone measured at the girdle. See col. 1, ll. 24-28. The specification goes on to define a specific diameter taken as an average measurement at the girdle, with an average crown mains height being from about 14.83 to about 16.93 percent of that specific diameter. See col. 7, ll. 66-67; col. 8, ll. 38-39. Thus, amended claim 16 recites new matter because it is not limited to a crown mains height defined relative to an average diameter measured at the girdle.
Amended claim 20 recites “…the formulae…and LH°max=[PM+1.26-0.03667*(LH %-75)]” (ll. 5 and 8). The change from “0.3667” to “0.03667” introduces new matter for the reasons explained above.
In line 33, new claim 21 recites one set of proportions as: pavilion mains angle of 40.9°, lower halves length of 77%, maximum lower halves angle of 42.03°, and crown mains angle of 33.70° to <35.00°. However, the original disclosure fails to provide support for this set of proportions including a maximum lower halves angle of 42.03°. According to Table 5, the maximum lower halves angle should be 42.09° for this set of proportions.
In each of lines 36-40, new claim 21 recites a set of proportions including a crown mains angle of 33.7° to 34.3°. However, the original disclosure sets forth a crown mains angle of 33.70° to 34.3° (or 33.70° to 34.30°) for these sets of proportions. The change from “33.70°” to “33.7°” introduces new matter because “33.7°” encompasses values (e.g., 33.71°, 33.72°, 33.73° and 33.74°) that are not encompassed by “33.70°”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in response to this Office action.
Filing Receipt
A Corrected Filing Receipt was mailed on December 5, 2025 in order to accurately identify the domestic benefit data set forth in the Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed on December 2, 2024. The previous filing receipts failed to present complete domestic benefit data.
Consent of Assignee
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as lacking a proper written consent of all assignees owning an undivided interest in the patent. The consent of the assignee must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172. See MPEP 1410.01.
The Form PTO/AIA /53 (Reissue Application: Consent of Assignee…) filed on December 2, 2024 is defective because the person who signed the form (i) is not recognized as an officer of the assignee, and (ii) has not been established as being authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. In this country, a person with the title “Manager of Agent” is not presumed to have authority to sign on behalf of an organization. See MPEP 325.
A proper written consent of the assignee in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172 and 3.73 is required in reply to this Office action.
Establishing Ownership Interest
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as the assignee has not properly established its ownership interest in the patent for which reissue is being requested. An assignee must establish its ownership interest in order to support the consent to a reissue application required by 37 CFR 1.172(a).
The Form PTO/AIA /96 (Statement Under 37 CFR 3.73(c)) filed on December 2, 2024 is defective because it does not identify the patent for which reissue is being requested. The 2nd line of the form should identify the patent number and issue date.
A proper submission establishing ownership interest in the patent, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.172(a), is required in response to this action.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue declaration filed on December 2, 2024 (which is a copy of the reissue declaration filed in parent Application No. 17/472,249 on January 25, 2024) is defective because the patent number, grant date, and invention title fields (upper portion of p. 1) are illegible. The declaration would be acceptable if these defects are corrected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the reissue oath/declaration is explained above.
GROUND 2: Claims 2-6, 14, 16, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. See the explanation above. Claims 3-6 are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
GROUND 3: Claims 2-6, 14, 16, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because these claims recite new matter. See the explanation above. Claims 3-6 are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
GROUND 4: Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. These claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. Applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims—explaining how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. A description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2163-2163.03.
Claim 1 recites a method of shaping/amending a gemstone comprising:
Amending a crown mains angle (CM°) to within 33.70-35.00 degrees.
Amending a pavilion mains angle (PM°) to within 40.60-41.00 degrees.
Amending a lower halves length (LH%) to within 75-79 percent of a pavilion mains length (PM%).
Amending one or more parameters of the gemstone, selected from shallowing a lower halves angle (LH°), decreasing the LH%, shallowing the PM°, and shallowing the CM°, in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect.
Claim 1 encompasses a method that produces any of a great number of amended gemstones, including the following amended gemstones:
CM°
PM°
PM%
LH%
LH°
1
33.70-35.00°
40.60-41.00°
any value
75-79% of any value of PM%
any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect
2
33.70-35.00°
40.60-41.00°
any value
any value that has been decreased in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect
any value
3
33.70-35.00°
any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect
any value
75-79% of any value of PM%
any value
4
any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect
40.60-41.00°
any value
75-79% of any value of PM%
any value
5
any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect
any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect
any value
75-79% of any value of PM%
any value
6
33.70-35.00°
40.60-41.00°
any value
any value that has been decreased in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect
any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect
7
any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect
any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect
any value
any value that has been decreased in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect
any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect
The table above is exemplary, not exhaustive. Numerous other amended gemstones are encompassed by the broad scope of claim 1 (and especially the broad scope of the final step of claim 1).
The Appendix to this Office action provides a summary of the patent specification’s disclosure of amended gemstones that are believed to avoid the green table effect. A comparison of the Appendix to the table above shows that applicant’s disclosure does not provide support for a method that produces an amended gemstone including any of the following features encompassed by claim 1:
Any value of PM%. The patent specification is silent as to the value of PM% or the range of values of PM%. This parameter is necessarily limited to some value or some range of values, i.e., it cannot be any value as allowed by claim 1.
LH% of 75-79% of any value of PM%. Since PM% is necessarily limited to some value or some range of values, LH% cannot be 75-79% of any value as allowed by claim 1.
LH° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as:
Any value for LH° that is not set forth in Table 5 or Table B.
Any value for LH° that is not limited by the relationships between PM°, LH% and LH° set forth in Table 5.
LH% of any value that has been decreased in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 79% of any value of PM%, or any value below 75% of any value of PM%. In particular, there is no support for a LH% value that is decreased relative to the lower bound of the range of 75-79% required by claim 1. Further, LH% cannot be 75-79% of any value of PM% as allowed by claim 1.
PM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 41.00°, or any value below 40.60°. In particular, there is no support for a PM° value that is shallowed to a value below 40.5°.
CM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 35.00°, or any value below 33.70°. In particular, there is no support for a CM° value that is shallowed relative to the lower bound of the range of 33.70-35.00° required by claim 1.
PM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 40.8° in combination with CM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 35.00° (or 33.70°). Instead, the patent specification states that shallowing CM° has no effect on the green table when PM° is below 40.8° or 40.9°. Further, the patent specification sets forth specific maximum values for CM° based on specific values for PM°.
PM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as a value of 40.8° in combination with LH° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as a value equal to or below 40.8°. Instead, the patent specification states that LH° must be greater than PM°, and preferably greater by at least 0.5°.
LH° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value not set forth in Table 5 or Table B in combination with LH% of any value that has been decreased in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 79% (or 75%) of any value of PM%. Rather, Table 5 and Table B disclose specific maximum values for LH° based on specific values of PM° and LH%.
At least for these reasons, the broad scope of claim 1 encompasses subject matter for which the patent specification fails to provide an adequate written description. That is, the patent specification fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 limits the claimed method to a LH° defined by Equations (1) and (2) in the patent specification. However, claim 2 encompasses subject matter for which the supporting disclosure is insufficient for many of the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1. For example, claim 2 still encompasses:
Any value of PM%. The patent specification is silent as to the value of PM% or the range of values of PM%. This parameter is necessarily limited to some value or some range of values, i.e., it cannot be any value as allowed by claim 1.
LH% of 75-79% of any value of PM%. Since PM% is necessarily limited to some value or some range of values, LH% cannot be 75-79% of any value as allowed by claim 1.
LH° of values that are not set forth in Table 5 or Table B and that are not limited by the relationships between PM°, LH% and LH° set forth in Table 5.
LH% of any value that has been decreased in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 79% of any value of PM%, or any value below 75% of any value of PM%.
PM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 41.00°, or any value below 40.60°.
CM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 35.00°, or any value below 33.70°.
PM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 40.8° in combination with CM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 35.00° (or 33.70°).
PM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as a value of 40.8° in combination with LH° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as a value equal to or below 40.8°.
LH° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value not set forth in Table 5 or Table B in combination with LH% of any value that has been decreased in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 79% (or 75%) of any value of PM%.
Claims 3-6 and 8-16 encompass subject matter for which the supporting disclosure is insufficient for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 4-6 require steps of determining the polishing/cutting needed to obtain the amended gemstone. For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, the patent specification fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, including the full scope of the determining steps required to produce the full scope of the amended gemstones capable of being produced by the claimed method.
Claims 17-19 limit the claimed method to specific reduced ranges for CM°, PM° and LH%. However, claims 17-19 encompasses subject matter for which the supporting disclosure is insufficient for many of the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1. For example, claims 17-19 still encompass:
Any value of PM%. The patent specification is silent as to the value of PM% or the range of values of PM%. This parameter is necessarily limited to some value or some range of values, i.e., it cannot be any value as allowed by claim 1.
LH% of 75-79% of any value of PM%. Since PM% is necessarily limited to some value or some range of values, LH% cannot be 75-79% of any value as allowed by claim 1.
LH° of values that are not set forth in Table 5 or Table B and that are not limited by the relationships between PM°, LH% and LH° set forth in Table 5.
LH% of any value that has been decreased in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 79% (or 78%) of any value of PM%, or any value below 75% of any value of PM%.
With respect to claims 17 and 19, PM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 41.00°, or any value below 40.60°.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, CM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 35.00°, or any value below 33.70°.
PM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as a value of 40.6-40.8° in combination with CM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 35.00° (or 33.70-34.70°).
PM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as a value of 40.6-40.8° in combination with LH° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as a value equal to or below 40.8°.
LH° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value not set forth in Table 5 or Table B in combination with LH% of any value that has been decreased in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 79% (or 75% or 78%) of any value of PM%.
Claim 20 limits the claimed method to specific reduced ranges for CM°, PM° and LH% and to a LH° defined by Equations (4) and (5) in the patent specification. However, claim 20 encompasses subject matter for which the supporting disclosure is insufficient for many of the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1. For example, claim 20 still encompasses:
Any value of PM%. The patent specification is silent as to the value of PM% or the range of values of PM%. This parameter is necessarily limited to some value or some range of values, i.e., it cannot be any value as allowed by claim 1.
LH% of 75-79% of any value of PM%. Since PM% is necessarily limited to some value or some range of values, LH% cannot be 75-79% of any value as allowed by claim 1.
LH% of any value that has been decreased in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 79% (or 78%) of any value of PM%, or any value below 75% of any value of PM%.
PM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as a value of 40.6-40.8° in combination with CM° of any value that has been shallowed in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as a value of 33.70-34.70°.
LH° defined by Equations (4) and (5) in combination with LH% of any value that has been decreased in an amount effective to avoid the green table effect such as any value below 78% (or 75%) of any value of PM%.
GROUND 5: Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for the entire scope of the claimed invention. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that “the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” Nevertheless, not everything necessary to practice the invention need be disclosed; all that is necessary is that one skilled in the art be able to practice the claimed invention, given the level of knowledge and skill in the art. With respect to the breadth of a claim, the relevant concern is whether the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. See MPEP 2164.08.
GROUND 4 explains how the scope of the claims exceeds the scope of the disclosure. Concerning the Wands factors (see MPEP 2164.01(a)):
(A) The breadth of the claims is addressed in GROUND 4.
(B) The nature of the invention is a new discovery for avoiding the green table effect in a precision hearts and arrows brilliant cut gemstone (diamond).
(C) The prior art considered by the examiner does not explicitly identify the problem of the green table effect that is addressed by applicant, but it does teach the desirability of increased brilliance and fire, and of maximizing the reflection of red light from a cut gemstone. Further, the prior art teaches (i) evaluating parameters of a cut gemstone (or a model thereof) including CM°, PM°, LH% and LH°, and (ii) selecting/amending one or more of these parameters to yield more optimal results such as increased brilliance and fire, and maximum reflection of red light.
(D) The skilled artisan is familiar with the parameters that affect the brilliance of cut gemstones, and with amending these parameters to produce more optimal results. However, it is unclear whether the skilled artisan was aware of the problem of the green table effect, or of known solutions to this problem.
(E) The level of predictability in the art is considered to be somewhat low since (i) the prior art does not explicitly address the problem of the green table effect and, thus, does not explicitly teach solutions to this problem (though it does teach selecting/amending parameters to yield increased brilliance and fire, and maximum reflection of red light), (ii) applicant’s own specification indicates that significant experimentation is required to determine what parameters affect the green table effect and how modifications of such parameters affect the green table effect, and (iii) the prior art teaches that evaluating and amending a gemstone’s parameters for optimal results is a very complex procedure that depends upon a complex combination of a plurality of parameters.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor is summarized in the Appendix to this Office action. This disclosure is insufficient at least for the reasons detailed in GROUND 4.
(G) Applicant discloses some examples that are believed to avoid the green table effect but fails to explain how one might achieve the full scope of the claims for the reasons detailed in GROUND 4.
(H) As noted above, the prior art teaches that evaluating and amending a gemstone’s parameters for optimal results is a very complex procedure that depends upon a complex combination of a plurality of parameters. Due to the insufficiency of applicant’s disclosure, an undue amount of experimentation would be needed to make or use the full scope of the invention encompassed by the claims. For example, the skilled artisan would have to engage in extensive and complex experimentation to determine:
Which values of PM% would be acceptable, i.e., would enable the elimination of the green table effect through modification of one or more of CM°, PM°, LH% and LH°. The patent specification is silent as to the value of PM% or the range of values of PM%. Further, the term “pavilion mains length” does not appear to be a standard/conventional term in the art.1 Thus, extensive experimentation would be required to determine which values of PM% are acceptable.
Which values of LH% within the disclosed range of 75-79% of the unknown value(s) of PM% would be acceptable, i.e., would enable the elimination of the green table effect through modification of one or more of CM°, PM°, LH% and LH°. Since LH% is based on PM%, extensive experimentation would be required to determine which values of PM% are acceptable and, thus, which values of LH% (as 75-79% of PM%) would be acceptable.
Which values of LH°, that are not set forth in Table 5 or Table B and are not limited by the relationships between PM°, LH% and LH° set forth in Table 5, would be acceptable, i.e., would enable the elimination of the green table effect through modification of one or more of CM°, PM°, LH% and LH°.
Which decreased values of LH% (including those below the disclosed lower bound of the range of 75-79% of PM%) would be acceptable, i.e., would result in the elimination of the green table effect either alone or together with additional modifications of one or more of CM°, PM° and LH°.
Which shallowed values of PM° (including those below the disclosed value of 40.5°) would be acceptable, i.e., would result in the elimination of the green table effect either alone or together with additional modifications of one or more of CM°, LH% and LH°.
Which shallowed values of CM° (including those below the disclosed value of 33.7°) would be acceptable, i.e., would result in the elimination of the green table effect either alone or together with additional modifications of one or more of PM°, LH% and LH°.
Which shallowed values of LH° (including those not set forth in Table 5 or Table B) would be acceptable, i.e., would result in the elimination of the green table effect either alone or together with additional modifications of one or more of CM°, PM° and LH%.
Thus, the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for the entire scope of the claimed invention.
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.
GROUND 6: Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
For the reasons detailed in GROUND 4, the scope of applicant’s claims is not commensurate with the scope of applicant’s disclosure. This makes it impossible to determine, with any degree of certainty, what subject matter is encompassed by claims 1-6 and 8-20 and what subject matter is excluded thereby.
Claim 1 recites “amending [the]a lower halves length to within 75-79 percent of a pavilion mains length” (ll. 7-8). Neither claim 1 nor the patent specification identifies any value for pavilion mains length (PM%). Therefore, it is impossible to determine with any certainty what values of lower halves length (LH%) fall within the claimed range of 75-79% of PM%. Further, the prior art considered by the examiner does not use or define the term “pavilion mains length”, and this term does not appear to be a standard/conventional term in the art.2 Thus, it cannot be argued that the skilled artisan would readily understand the meets and bounds of the claimed 75-79% of PM%.
The final step of claim 1 recites “…shallowing a lower halves angle, decreasing the lower halves length, shallowing the pavilion mains angle, and shallowing the crown mains angle…” The terms “shallowing” and “decreasing” are relative terms, but the claim fails to define either (i) a frame of reference that the claimed parameters are shallowed or decreased relative to, or (ii) any degree to which the claimed parameters are shallowed or decreased. Without a frame of reference, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained. And without any definition of the degree to which the claimed parameters are changed, it is impossible to determine what subject matter is encompassed by the claim, and what subject matter is excluded.
The final step of claim 1 requires shallowing or decreasing the recited parameters “in an amount effective to [eliminate]avoid the green table effect from the amended gemstone.” However, the claimed “amount effective” is relative and subject to interpretation. What one person or standard determines to be effective will differ from what another person or standard defines as effective. And standards are subject to change over time. In addition, the patent specification does not identify a specific “amount effective to [eliminate]avoid the green table effect”. Rather, the specification discusses numerous examples/possibilities. Thus, it is impossible to determine what subject matter is encompassed by the claim, and what subject matter is excluded.
The final step of claim 1 recites “amending one or more parameters of the gemstone selected from shallowing a lower halves angle, decreasing the lower halves length, shallowing the pavilion mains angle, and shallowing the crown mains angle…” (ll. 9-11). Claim 2 recites “further comprising: amending one or more of the pavilion mains angle, the lower halves length, and the lower halves angle such that…” (ll. 1-4). As a result of the phrase “further comprising”, claim 2 appears to require that the limitation “amending one or more of the pavilion mains angle, the lower halves length, and the lower halves angle such that…” (claim 2, ll. 1-4) is distinct from the “amending” required by the final step of claim 1. However, such a definition of the invention is inconsistent with the patent specification, and is also inconsistent with the original wording of claim 2. This inconsistency renders claim 2 indefinite.
In claim 2, the formulae recited in line 8 include the variable LH°max, but lines 9-10 do not define LH°max. Failure to define each variable creates ambiguity as to the scope of the claim.
In claim 3, the term “said one or more amended parameters” (ll. 2-3) is inconsistent with prior claims 1 and 2. Claims 1 and 2 require a method step of amending one or more parameters, but do not recite one or more amended parameters. In other words, “said one or more amended parameters” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 4, the term “said amended crown mains angle, pavilion mains angle, lower halves length, and lower halves angle” (ll. 2-3) lacks proper antecedent basis and is inconsistent with prior claims 1 and 2. Note that claims 1 and 2 only require amending “one or more” of the selected parameters whereas the term in claim 4 refers to all of the recited parameters as amended.
In claim 5, the term “said amended crown mains angle, pavilion mains angle, lower halves length, and lower halves angle” (ll. 2-3) lacks proper antecedent basis and is inconsistent with prior claims 1 and 2. See the explanation above.
In claim 6, the term “said amended crown mains angle, pavilion mains angle, lower halves length, and lower halves angle” (ll. 2-3) lacks proper antecedent basis and is inconsistent with prior claims 1 and 2. See the explanation above.
The final step of claim 1 recites “amending one or more parameters of the gemstone selected from shallowing a lower halves angle, decreasing the lower halves length, shallowing the pavilion mains angle, and shallowing the crown mains angle…” (ll. 9-11). Claim 8 recites “further comprising cutting or polishing the lower halves to amend one of the length [or] and the angle of the lower halves.” As a result of the phrase “further comprising”, claim 8 appears to require that the limitation “cutting or polishing the lower halves to amend one of the length or angle of the lower halves” (claim 8) is distinct from the “amending” required by the final step of claim 1. However, such a definition of the invention is inconsistent with the patent specification, and is also inconsistent with the original wording of claim 8. This inconsistency renders claim 8 indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “further comprising cutting or polishing the lower halves to amend one of the length [or] and the angle of the lower halves.” It is unclear how this cutting or polishing (i.e., amending of the lower halves length or angle) relates to any of (i) the claim 1 step of “amending [the]a lower halves length” (ll. 7-8), (ii) the claim 1 step of “shallowing a lower halves angle” (ll. 9-10), or (iii) the claim 1 step of “decreasing the lower halves length” (l. 10). Does the “cutting or polishing” limitation of claim 8 specify that one or more of the “amending”, “shallowing” and “decreasing” of claim 1 occurs by “cutting or polishing”? If so, which of the “amending”, “shallowing” and “decreasing” is limited by claim 8? Or, does claim 8 require a further “cutting or polishing” after one or more of the “amending”, “shallowing” and “decreasing” of claim 1 has been performed? Due to this ambiguity, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty.
In claim 8, the term “the lower halves” (ll. 2-3) lacks proper antecedent basis. While claim 1 recites “a lower halves length”, the claim does not introduce “a lower halves”.
The final step of claim 1 recites “amending one or more parameters of the gemstone selected from shallowing a lower halves angle, decreasing the lower halves length, shallowing the pavilion mains angle, and shallowing the crown mains angle…” (ll. 9-11). Claim 9 recites “further consisting essentially of polishing the lower halves to amend one of the length and angle of the lower halves.” As a result of the phrase “further consisting essentially of”, claim 9 appears to require that the limitation “polishing the lower halves to amend one of the length and angle of the lower halves” (claim 9) is distinct from the “amending” required by the final step of claim 1 and/or the “cutting or polishing” required by claim 8. However, such a definition of the invention is inconsistent with the patent specification, and is also inconsistent with the original wording of claim 9. This inconsistency renders claim 9 indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “further consisting essentially of polishing the lower halves to amend one of the length and angle of the lower halves.” It is unclear how this polishing (i.e., amending of the lower halves length or angle) relates to any of (i) the claim 1 step of “amending [the]a lower halves length” (ll. 7-8), (ii) the claim 1 step of “shallowing a lower halves angle” (ll. 9-10), or (iii) the claim 1 step of “decreasing the lower halves length” (l. 10). Does the “polishing” limitation of claim 9 specify that one or more of the “amending”, “shallowing” and “decreasing” of claim 1 occurs by “polishing”? If so, which of the “amending”, “shallowing” and “decreasing” is limited by claim 9? Or, does claim 9 require a further “polishing” after one or more of the “amending”, “shallowing” and “decreasing” of claim 1 has been performed? Due to this ambiguity, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty.
The final step of claim 1 recites “amending one or more parameters of the gemstone selected from shallowing a lower halves angle, decreasing the lower halves length, shallowing the pavilion mains angle, and shallowing the crown mains angle…” (ll. 9-11). Claim 10 recites “further comprising cutting or polishing the pavilion mains to amend the angle of the pavilion mains.” As a result of the phrase “further comprising”, claim 10 appears to require that the limitation “cutting or polishing the pavilion mains to amend the angle of the pavilion mains” (claim 10) is distinct from the “amending” required by the final step of claim 1. However, such a definition of the invention is inconsistent with the patent specification, and is also inconsistent with the original wording of claim 10. This inconsistency renders claim 10 indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “further comprising cutting or polishing the pavilion mains to amend the angle of the pavilion mains.” It is unclear how this cutting or polishing (i.e., amending of the pavilion mains angle) relates to either (i) the claim 1 step of “amending [the]a pavilion mains angle” (ll. 5-6), or (ii) the claim 1 step of “shallowing the pavilion mains angle” (l. 10). Does the “cutting or polishing” limitation of claim 10 specify that one or more of the “amending” and “shallowing” of claim 1 occurs by “cutting or polishing”? If so, which of the “amending” and “shallowing” is limited by claim 10? Or, does claim 10 require a further “cutting or polishing” after one or more of the “amending” and “shallowing” of claim 1 has been performed? Due to this ambiguity, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty.
In claim 10, the term “the pavilion mains” (l. 2) lacks proper antecedent basis. While claim 1 recites “a pavilion mains angle”, the claim does not introduce “a pavilion mains”.
The final step of claim 1 recites “amending one or more parameters of the gemstone selected from shallowing a lower halves angle, decreasing the lower halves length, shallowing the pavilion mains angle, and shallowing the crown mains angle…” (ll. 9-11). Claim 11 recites “further consisting essentially of polishing the pavilion mains to amend the angle of the pavilion mains.” As a result of the phrase “further consisting essentially of”, claim 11 appears to require that the limitation “polishing the pavilion mains to amend the angle of the pavilion mains” (claim 11) is distinct from the “amending” required by the final step of claim 1 and/or the “cutting or polishing” required by claim 10. However, such a definition of the invention is inconsistent with the patent specification, and is also inconsistent with the original wording of claim 11. This inconsistency renders claim 11 indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “further consisting essentially of polishing the pavilion mains to amend the angle of the pavilion mains.” It is unclear how this polishing (i.e., amending of the l pavilion mains angle) relates to either (i) the claim 1 step of “amending [the]a pavilion mains angle” (ll. 5-6), or (ii) the claim 1 step of “shallowing the pavilion mains angle” (l. 10). Does the “polishing” limitation of claim 11 specify that one or more of the “amending” and “shallowing” of claim 1 occurs by “polishing”? If so, which of the “amending” and “shallowing” is limited by claim 11? Or, does claim 11 require a further “polishing” after one or more of the “amending” and “shallowing” of claim 1 has been performed? Due to this ambiguity, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty.
Claim 12 recites “further comprising cutting or polishing the pavilion mains…to amend the angle of the pavilion mains”. Claim 12 is indefinite for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 10.
Claim 13 recites “further consisting essentially of polishing the pavilion mains…to amend the angle of the pavilion mains.” Claim 13 is indefinite for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 11.
Claim 14 recites “further comprising cutting the gemstone from rough” while prior claim 1 is specifically directed to shaping/amending an original gemstone (i.e., amending a gemstone that was previously cut from rough). See the preamble and lines 3-12 of claim 1. The patent specification discloses that the inventive shaping to avoid the green table effect can comprise cutting the gemstone from rough, or re-cutting and/or polishing the gemstone from the original cut. See, for example, col. 7, ll. 26-29. Thus, claim 14 appears to be drawn to a different embodiment than claim 1. When a dependent claim contradicts, negates and/or renders optional a requirement of the claim from which it depends, the dependent claim is indefinite.
The final step of claim 1 recites “amending one or more parameters of the gemstone selected from shallowing a lower halves angle, decreasing the lower halves length, shallowing the pavilion mains angle, and shallowing the crown mains angle…” (ll. 9-11). Claim 15 recites “further comprising re-cutting the gemstone from [the]an original cut.” As a result of the phrase “further comprising”, claim 15 appears to require that the limitation “re-cutting the gemstone from [the]an original cut” (claim 15) is distinct from the “amending” required by the final step of claim 1. However, such a definition of the invention is inconsistent with the patent specification, and is also inconsistent with the original wording of claim 15. This inconsistency renders claim 15 indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “a table of about 53.5 to about 58.0 percent of a diameter” (ll. 1-2). This broad recitation allows for the recited table to be defined relative to any diameter. In contrast, the original disclosure states that facet angles and dimensions are generally taken with respect to a table angle of 0° and the average diameter of the gemstone measured at the girdle. See col. 1, ll. 24-28. The specification goes on to define a specific diameter taken as an average measurement at the girdle, with the table having an average width from about 53.5 to about 58.0 percent of that specific diameter. See col. 7, ll. 66-67; col. 8, ll. 2-3. Thus, amended claim 16 is indefinite because its broad scope is inconsistent with the specification, and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained with any certainty.
In claim 16, the term “a crown mains” (l. 3) is indefinite because the singular article “a” is inconsistent with the plural term “mains”. The examiner suggests amending “an average length of a crown mains” to read “an average crown mains length”.
Claim 16 recites “a girdle thickness from a minimum of about 0.1 to a maximum of about 5.4 percent of the diameter” (ll. 3-4). This broad recitation allows for the recited girdle thickness to be defined relative to any diameter. In contrast, the original disclosure states that facet angles and dimensions are generally taken with respect to a table angle of 0° and the average diameter of the gemstone measured at the girdle. See col. 1, ll. 24-28. The specification goes on to define a specific diameter taken as an average measurement at the girdle, with a girdle thickness being a minimum of about 0.1 to a maximum of about 5.4 percent (±0.05 percent) of that specific diameter. See col. 7, ll. 66-67; col. 8, ll. 11-13. Thus, amended claim 16 is indefinite because its broad scope is inconsistent with the specification, and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained with any certainty.
Claim 16 recites “a crown mains height from about 14.83 to about 16.93 percent of the diameter” (ll. 5-6). This broad recitation allows for the recited crown mains height to be defined relative to any diameter. In contrast, the original disclosure states that facet angles and dimensions are generally taken with respect to a table angle of 0° and the average diameter of the gemstone measured at the girdle. See col. 1, ll. 24-28. The specification goes on to define a specific diameter taken as an average measurement at the girdle, with an average crown mains height being from about 14.83 to about 16.93 percent of that specific diameter. See col. 7, ll. 66-67; col. 8, ll. 38-39. Thus, amended claim 16 is indefinite because its broad scope is inconsistent with the specification, and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained with any certainty.
Claim 16 recites “a diameter” (l. 2), “the diameter” (ll. 4 and 6), “a girdle width” (l. 5) and “the girdle width” (l. 6). As explained above, the specification defines the term “diameter” as the average diameter of the gemstone measured at the girdle. So, is the claimed “girdle width” the same as the claimed “diameter”, or are these different parameters/values?
In claim 16, “an AGS light performance grade of ideal 0” (l. 7) is indefinite because standards change over time, which would mean that the scope of the claim would change over time.
In claim 19, the term “a pavilion mains length” (l. 2) is indefinite because it is unclear how this term relates to “a pavilion mains length” (claim 1, l. 8). Does claim 19 refer to the same pavilion mains length introduced in claim 1, or does claim 19 introduce a different pavilion mains length? If they are the same, then claim 19 inaccurately suggests they are different.
In claim 20, the term “a pavilion mains length” (l. 4) is indefinite. See the explanation above.
In claim 20, the formulae recited in line 8 include the variable LH°max, but lines 9-10 do not define LH°max. Failure to define each variable creates ambiguity as to the scope of the claim.
In claim 20, the term “a pavilion mains length” (l. 10) is indefinite. See the explanation above. Further, it is unclear how “a pavilion mains length” (l. 10) relates to “a pavilion mains length” (l. 4).
Claim 21 recites “amending a lower halves length to within 75-79 percent of a pavilion mains length” (l. 5). This subject matter is indefinite for the reasons given above with respect to the same subject matter in claim 1.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Ariel”
US Publication No. 2016/0103938 A1
“Guo”
CN Publication No. 201153610 Y (with translation)
“Kawabuchi et al.”
US Patent No. 7,225,641 B2
“Rebrik et al.”
RU Publication No. 2 264 614 C2 (with translation)
“Reinitz et al.”
US Patent No. 7,260,544 B1
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Ariel explains that initial cutting of rough diamonds does not always yield optimum results. See ¶ 0003. Thus, Ariel discloses a method of amending cut diamonds that involves (i) obtaining a full listing of the parameters of a cut diamond from a database, (ii) constructing a virtual model of the cut diamond, (iii) analyzing the virtual model using criteria based on cut and symmetry to determine whether the diamond can be re-cut to yield more optimal results, (iv) calculating appropriate re-cutting to yield more optimal results, (v) constructing a model illustrating the appropriate re-cutting, and (vi) outputting the results to an end user or cutting machine that carries out the re-cutting. See Figs. 4-7; ¶¶ 0004, 0012-0013, 0021, 0026-0037. Ariel’s method is practiced using an automated computer-based evaluation system, with optional input from a human operator. See Figs. 1-3; ¶¶ 0013-0025, 0037. The re-cutting can also be automated using a computer-based cutting machine. See ¶ 0037.
Fig. 6 of Ariel shows an example of a full listing of parameters of a cut diamond to be analyzed and a virtual model constructed from this full listing of parameters. The parameters include a crown angle of 37.00°, a pavilion angle of 40.80°, a lower halves length ratio of 75%, and a lower halves angle of 42.1°. Fig. 7 shows an example of a listing of amended parameters to be used in re-cutting the diamond and a virtual model illustrating the re-cutting. The amended parameters include a crown angle of 35.04° (reduced from the original 37.00°) and a pavilion angle of 40.52° (reduced from the original 40.80°). Fig. 7 also shows the unamended lower halves length ratio of 75%. Thus, Ariel discloses amending selected parameters including shallowing the crown angle and the pavilion angle.
Reinitz et al. is concerned with grading the quality of cut in round brilliant cut diamonds. See col. 1, ll. 7-31. Reinitz et al. teaches that a complex combination of parameters affects the quality of cut in such a diamond, and that maximizing the quality of cut can be achieved in a number of ways (i.e., by changing different cut parameters in different ways and in different combinations). See col. 1, l. 32 to col. 2, l. 11; col. 7, l. 1 to col. 8, l. 33; col. 11, l. 62 to col. 13, l. 10. Reinitz et al. uses a computer-based system to express mathematically the quality of a diamond’s appearance, which can be used to (i) evaluate how the diamond’s appearance is affected by a large number of possible cut parameters, and (ii) determine target parameters for cutting diamonds of higher quality. See col. 3, l. 42 to col. 4, l. 63.
Reinitz et al. teaches that crown angle, pavilion angle, and lower girdle length (i.e., lower halves length ratio) are among the parameters that should be carefully evaluated to determine the quality of a diamond. See Fig. 1 (including the descriptive text in the figure); Figs. 2A-2C (presenting data showing how diamond quality varies with changes in crown angle); Figs. 3A-3C (presenting data showing how diamond quality varies with changes in pavilion angle); Fig. 24 (presenting data showing how diamond quality varies with changes in lower girdle/halves length ratio); col. 9, l. 56 to col. 10, l. 2; col. 10, l. 48 to col. 11, l. 11; col. 11, ll. 43-50; col. 11, l. 62 to col. 12, l. 45.
Reinitz et al. concludes that, when considered individually, a crown angle of 34°-35°, a pavilion angle of 40°-41°, and a lower girdle/halves length ratio of 0.80-0.85 (80%-85%) each achieve a high-quality appearance. See col. 10, l. 56 to col. 11, l. 11; col. 11, ll. 43-50. However, as noted above, Reinitz et al. teaches that overall quality depends, not on the selection of one individual parameter, but rather on a complex combination of parameters. Thus, Reinitz et al. concludes that there are many combinations of parameters that yield diamonds with a high-quality appearance. See col. 12, l. 46 to col. 13, l. 10. Note the explanation that, for some given values of two parameters, changes in a third parameter in a single direction may first worsen the quality of the diamond’s appearance and then improve it again. See col. 12, ll. 60-66.
Based on the detailed data and accompanying explanation provided by Reinitz et al., the skilled artisan would (i) recognize that lower girdle/halves parameters are among the parameters that should be carefully evaluated to determine the quality of a diamond, (ii) appreciate that maximizing the quality of cut can be achieved by changing different cut parameters in different ways and in different combinations, and (ii) be equipped to explore numerous complex combinations of cut parameters to determine which combinations of parameters yield diamonds with the best appearance.
Guo teaches a round brilliant cut diamond with a hearts and arrows cut. See Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0007-0008, 0010, 0018, 0029. The cut parameters include a crown angle of 30°-35° (e.g., 35°) and a pavilion angle of 40°-41° (e.g., 40.5°). See ¶¶ 0012, 0029, 0032. The cut achieves increased brilliance and fire. See ¶¶ 0004-0007, 0010, 0013-0015, 0018, 0031. Guo also explains that changing the crown angle and the pavilion angle controls the spectral performance and can maximize the reflection of red light. See ¶ 0017.
Rebrik et al. teaches a round brilliant cut diamond with a hearts and arrows cut. See Figs. 1-2 and 4-22; ¶¶ 0068-0069. The standard cut parameters include a crown angle of 34.8°, a pavilion angle of 40.7°, and a lower halves length of 79%. See ¶¶ 0018, 0089. Slightly modified cut parameters include a crown angle of 34°, a pavilion angle of 41°, and a lower halves length of 79%. See ¶¶ 0075-0076, 0147-0148. Other modified cut parameters include a crown angle of 33°, a pavilion angle of 37°, and a lower halves length of 80%. See ¶¶ 0077-0079, 0149. Tables 2-11 show specific combinations of crown angle and pavilion angle that provide an improvement over the standard cut parameters (as indicated by a score greater than 1.00 in Tables 2-11). Rebrik et al. concludes that a crown angle of 32°-35° and a pavilion angle of 41° provides a slight improvement over the standard cut parameters. See ¶ 0157.
Kawabuchi et al. teaches that conventional cut parameters include a crown angle of 34.5° and a pavilion angle of 40.75°. See col. 1, ll. 42-45; col. 11, ll. 56-60. Other conventional cut parameters are discussed at col. 1, l. 58 to col. 2, l. 2. Kawabuchi et al. seeks to improve on the prior art by using a pavilion angle (p) of 37.5°-41° (e.g., 38.5°) and a crown angle (c) that satisfies the formulae:
c > –2.8667×p + 134.233 and p < ¼{(sin-1(1/n) + sin-1(1/n×sin c)) × 180/π + 180–2c}
This relationship of crown angle (c) to pavilion angle (p) is illustrated in Fig. 22. As shown in Fig. 21, the best results are achieved at a crown angle of approximately 23.5° when the pavilion angle is 40°, and at a crown angle of approximately 21° when the pavilion angle is 41°.
Duplicate Claims
Applicant is advised that should claims 10 and 11 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(b) as being a substantial duplicate of claim 10, and claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(b) as being a substantial duplicate of claim 11. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Specification
The specification is objected to because the description at col. 7, lines 41-45 is inconsistent with and appears to contradict the equation for CMmax in Table 2.3 The description at col. 7, lines 41-45 defines the maximum value (CMmax) for the crown mains angle (CM) as follows:
CM ≤ 34.3° for a pavilion mains angle (PM) of 41.0°.
CM ≤ 34.8° for a PM of 40.8°.
However, substituting a PM of 41.0° into the equation for CMmax in Table 2 yields a result for CMmax of 34.93, which differs from the maximum value of 34.3 identified at col. 7, lines 41-45. Further, substituting a PM of 40.8° into the equation for CMmax in Table 2 yields a result for CMmax of 35.00, which differs from the maximum value of 34.8 identified at col. 7, lines 41-45. This inconsistency creates confusion as to the scope of the disclosure.
The specification is objected to because the description at col. 7, lines 41-45 is inconsistent with and appears to contradict the description at col. 12, ll. 61-67. As noted above, the description at col. 7, lines 41-45 states that the crown mains angle is less than or equal to 34.8° for a pavilion mains angle of 40.8°. However, the description at col. 12, ll. 61-67 states that:
Within the proportion parameters of applicant’s invention (crown mains angle less than 35.00°), and when the pavilion mains angle is less than 40.9°, reducing the crown mains angle has no effect, i.e., the green table effect is controlled exclusively by the pavilion mains angle, lower halves angle and lower halves length.
Thus, col. 7, ll. 41-45 states that the crown mains angle should be at or below 34.8° for a pavilion mains angle of 40.8°, but col. 12, ll. 61-67 states that reducing the crown mains angle below 35.00° has no effect below a pavilion mains angle of 40.9°. This inconsistency creates confusion as to the scope of the disclosure.
The specification is objected to because the description at col. 7, lines 48-51 is inconsistent with and appears to contradict the description at col. 12, ll. 61-67. The description at col. 7, ll. 48-51 states that:
At or below a pavilion mains angle of about 40.8°, the crown mains angle does not appear to have any effect on the green table effect within the parameters given in Table 2.
The description at col. 12, ll. 61-67 is cited above. Thus, col. 7, ll. 48-51 states that the crown mains angle has no effect at or below a pavilion mains angle of about 40.8°, but col. 12, ll. 61-67 states that the crown mains angle has no effect below a pavilion mains angle of 40.9°. This inconsistency creates confusion as to the scope of the disclosure.
The specification is objected to because:
At col. 11, line 2, “the preferred values in” should read “the preferred values (LH°max, No Indexing) in”.
At col. 13, lines 19-20, “the “operable” maximum lower halves angle” should read “the “operable” maximum lower halves angle (LH°max, with Indexing)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 1, 14 and 16-23 should be designated by a legend such as “PRIOR ART” or “COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE” because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP 608.02(g).
Fig. 1 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it includes reference number “18”, which is not mentioned in the specification.
Figs. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 include reference number “20”, which corresponds to facets. See Figs. 14-15; col. 10, ll. 45-63. However, the inclusion of reference number “20” in Figs. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 is improper because the facets are only illustrated in Figs. 14-15.
In each of Figs. 20, 21 and 23, the lead line for reference number “14A” is not properly directed to the corresponding green regions.
The drawing objections will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 2, 2024 have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts that the preliminary amendment does not introduce new matter. The examiner disagrees for the reasons given above.
Applicant argues that amending Equation (4) by replacing “0.3667” with “0.03667” is a correction of a typographical error that would have been readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The examiner disagrees for the reasons given above.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center4: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail5 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:/GLENN K DAWSON/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
APPENDIX – Summary of Disclosure of Amended Gemstones
Examples at col. 7, ll. 30-60
table width about 53.5-58.0%
crown stars length about 48-55%
girdle thickness about 0.1-5.4%
pavilion mains height about 43.76-44.23%
crown mains height about 14.83-16.93%
crown mains angle 33.7-34.8°, or 33.7-34.7°, or 33.7-34.6°, or 33.7-34.5°, or 33.7-34.4°, or 33.7-34.3°
crown mains angle ≤ 34.3° for pavilion mains angle 41.0°
crown mains angle ≤ 34.8° for pavilion mains angle 40.8°
pavilion mains angle 40.6-40.8°, or 41.0°
lower halves length 75-78%
lower halves angle according to Table 2 and/or Table 5
Examples in Table 2
table width 53.5-58.0%
crown stars length 48-55%
pavilion mains height 43.76-44.23%
crown mains height 14.83-16.93%
crown mains angle 33.70-35.00°, or 33.70-34.80°, or 33.70-34.30°
CMmax = 35.00 - 0.35*(PM - 40.8)
pavilion mains angle 40.5-40.9°, or 40.5-40.8°, or 40.6-40.8°
lower halves length 75-78%
lower halves angle according to Equations (3), (4) and/or (5)
Examples at col. 7, l. 61 to col. 9, l. 8
table width about 53.5-58.0%
crown stars length about 48-55%
girdle thickness about 0.1-5.4%
pavilion mains height about 43.76-44.23%
crown mains height about 14.83-16.93%
crown mains angle about 33.7-35°, or about 33.7-34.7°
crown mains angle about 33.7-35.00° for pavilion mains angle 40.6-41.00° and lower halves length about 74.0-79.0%
crown mains angle about 33.7-34.70° for pavilion mains angle 40.6-40.8° and lower halves length about 74.0-78.0%
lower halves angle according to Equations (1), (2A), (2B), (3), (4), (5), (5A) and/or (6)
Example at col. 9, ll. 9-55
table width about 53.5-58.0%
crown stars length about 48-55%
girdle thickness about 0.5-3.9%
pavilion mains height about 43.76-44.23%
crown mains height about 14.83-16.93%
crown mains angle about 33.7-34.7°
pavilion mains angle about 40.6-40.8°
lower halves length about 74.0-78.0%
lower halves angle according to Equations (1), (2A), (2B), (3), (4), (5), (5A) and/or (6)
Example 1 (Table 1) – Virtual Diamond 1B
table width 58% (unamended)
star width 50.00 % (unamended)
crown mains angle 34.50° (unamended)
lower halves length 77% (unamended)
pavilion mains angle 40.95° (reduced from 41.00°)
lower halves angle 42.14° (reduced from 42.19°)
Example 2 (Table 3) – Virtual Diamonds 2A and 2B
table width 58%
star width 50.00 %
crown mains angle 34.50°
pavilion mains angle 40.95°
lower halves length 75%, 76%, 77% (but not 78%, 79%, 80%) with lower halves angle 42.14°, or
lower halves length 77% with lower halves angle 42.04°, 42.07°, 42.11°, 42.14° (but not 42.18°, 42.21°)
Example 3 (Table 5) – maximum lower halves angle (no indexing)
for pavilion mains angle 40.5° and lower halves length 75% → max. lower halves angle 41.76
for pavilion mains angle 40.5° and lower halves length 76% → max. lower halves angle 41.72
for pavilion mains angle 40.5° and lower halves length 77% → max. lower halves angle 41.69
for pavilion mains angle 40.5° and lower halves length 78% → max. lower halves angle 41.65
for pavilion mains angle 40.5° and lower halves length 79% → max. lower halves angle 41.62
for pavilion mains angle 40.6° and lower halves length 75% → max. lower halves angle 41.86
for pavilion mains angle 40.6° and lower halves length 76% → max. lower halves angle 41.83
for pavilion mains angle 40.6° and lower halves length 77% → max. lower halves angle 41.79
for pavilion mains angle 40.6° and lower halves length 78% → max. lower halves angle 41.75
for pavilion mains angle 40.7° and lower halves length 75% → max. lower halves angle 41.96
for pavilion mains angle 40.7° and lower halves length 76% → max. lower halves angle 41.93
for pavilion mains angle 40.7° and lower halves length 77% → max. lower halves angle 41.89
for pavilion mains angle 40.7° and lower halves length 78% → max. lower halves angle 41.85
for pavilion mains angle 40.8° and lower halves length 75% → max. lower halves angle 42.06
for pavilion mains angle 40.8° and lower halves length 76% → max. lower halves angle 42.03
for pavilion mains angle 40.8° and lower halves length 77% → max. lower halves angle 41.99
for pavilion mains angle 40.8° and lower halves length 78% → max. lower halves angle 41.96
for pavilion mains angle 40.9° and lower halves length 75% → max. lower halves angle 42.16
for pavilion mains angle 40.9° and lower halves length 76% → max. lower halves angle 42.13
for pavilion mains angle 40.9° and lower halves length 77% → max. lower halves angle 42.09
for pavilion mains angle 40.9° and lower halves length 78% → max. lower halves angle 42.06
for pavilion mains angle 41.0° and lower halves length 75% → max. lower halves angle 42.26
for pavilion mains angle 41.0° and lower halves length 76% → max. lower halves angle 42.23
for pavilion mains angle 41.0° and lower halves length 77% → max. lower halves angle 42.19
for pavilion mains angle 41.0° and lower halves length 78% → max. lower halves angle 42.16
for pavilion mains angle 41.0° and lower halves length 79% → max. lower halves angle 42.12
Example 5 (Table B) – Virtual Diamond 5
table width 56% (unamended)
star width 48% (unamended)
star angle 21.68° (unamended)
upper halves angle 41.60° (unamended)
crown mains angle 34.9° (unamended)
pavilion mains angle 40.9° (unamended)
lower halves height (length?) 77% (unamended)
lower halves angle 40.81°-41.11° (reduced from 42.09°)
Example 9 – decreasing crown mains angle to eliminate green table effect
decrease crown mains angle to 34.30° for pavilion mains angle 41.00° (incl. for lower halves length 75%, 76%)
decrease crown mains angle to <34.65° for pavilion mains angle 40.95° (for lower halves length 75%)
decrease crown mains angle to <35.00° for pavilion mains angle 40.9°
Example 10 – maximum lower halves angle with indexing
max. lower halves values about 0.12° higher with indexing
Additional disclosure:
At or below a pavilion mains angle of about 40.8°, the crown mains angle does not appear to have any effect on the green table effect within the parameters given in Table 2 (col. 7, ll. 48-51).
Within the proportion parameters of applicant’s invention (crown mains angle less than 35.00°), and when the pavilion mains angle is less than 40.9°, reducing the crown mains angle has no effect, i.e., the green table effect is controlled exclusively by the pavilion mains angle, lower halves angle and lower halves length (col. 12, ll. 61-67).
The lower halves angle must be greater than the pavilion mains angle (per Equation (1)), and preferably the lower halves angle is greater than the pavilion mains angle by at least 0.5°, or at least 0.8°, or at least 1.0° (col. 14, ll. 3-6).
1 See “Diamond Cut: Anatomy of a Round Brilliant”, Gemological Institute of America (GIA) Education, January 14, 2016, retrieved at <https://www.gia.edu/diamond-cut/diamond-cut-anatomy-round-brilliant>. This article identifies standard diamond cut parameters but does not mention or define “pavilion mains length”.
2 See “Diamond Cut: Anatomy of a Round Brilliant”, Gemological Institute of America (GIA) Education, January 14, 2016, retrieved at <https://www.gia.edu/diamond-cut/diamond-cut-anatomy-round-brilliant>. This article identifies standard diamond cut parameters but does not mention or define “pavilion mains length”.
3 The equation for CMmax is labeled as Equation (6) in the version of Table 2 appearing in the patent specification. It has been relabeled as Equation (7) by applicant’s amendments to the specification.
4 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).
5 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.